LIBRARY 

University  of  California^ 

IRVINE 


/ 


62» , CONGRESS  1  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ( 

3d  Session     /  I  No.  1447 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS 

HOUSE  OF   REPRESENTATIVES 


VOL.  I 

SCHEDULES   A  AND  B 


INDEX  IX  FINAL  VOLUME 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OTTIOE 
1913 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS. 
HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES. 

OSCAR  \V.  UNDERWOOD,  Alabama,  Chairman. 

CHOICE  B.  RANDELL,  Texas.  ANDREW  J.  PETERS,  Massachusetts. 

FRANCIS  B.  HARRISON,  New  York.  A.  MITCHELL  PALMER,  Pennsylvania. 

WILLIAM  G.  BRANTLEY,  Georgia.  TIMOTHY  T.  ANSBERRY,  Ohio. 

DORSEY  W.  SHACKLEFORD,  Missouri.  SERENO  E.  PAYNE,  New  York. 

CLAUDE  KITCHIN,  North  Carolina.  JOHN  DALZELL,  Pennsylvania. 

OLLIE  M.  JAMES,  Kentucky.  SAMUEL  W.  McCALL,  Massachusetts. 

HENRY  T.  RAINEY,  Illinois.  EBENEZER  J.  HILL,  Connecticut. 

LINCOLN  DIXON,  Indiana.  JAMES  C.  NEEDHAM,  California. 

CORDELL  HULL,  Tennessee.  JOSEPH  W.  FORDNEY,  Michigan. 

WINFIELD  S.  HAMMOND,  Minnesota.  NICHOLAS  LONGWORTH,  Ohio. 

DANIEL  C.  ROPEE,  Clerk. 


PREFACE. 


Tariff  hearings  were  begun  on  January  6,  1913,  pursuant  to  the 
following  notice: 

The  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  announces  to  all  concerned  that  it  will  hold 
hearings  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  looking  to  the  revision  of  the  present  tariff  act  as  per 
the  following  schedule: 

Schedule  A:  Chemicals,  oils,  and  paints;  Monday,  January  6,  1913. 

Schedule  B:  Earths,  earthenware,  and  glassware;  Wednesday,  January  8. 

Schedule  C:  Metals  and  manufactures  of;  Friday,  January  10. 

Schedule  D:  Wood  and  manufactures  of,  and  schedule  L:  Silk  and  silk  goods; 
Monday,  January  13. 

Schedule  E:  Sugar  and  manufactures  of,  and  Schedule  H:  Spirits,  wines,  and  other 
beverages;  Wednesday,  January  15. 

Schedule  F:  Tobacco  and  manufactures  of,  and  Schedule  M:  Pulp,  paper,  and 
books;  Friday,  January  17. 

Schedule  G:  Agricultural  products  and  provisions;  Monday,  January  20. 

Schedule  I:  Cotton  manufactures;  Wednesday,  January  22. 

Schedule  J:  Flax,  hemp,  and  jute,  and  manufactures  of;  Friday,  January  24. 

(Schedule  K:  Wool,  and  manufactures  of;  Monday,  January  27. 
Schedule  N:  Sundries;  Wednesday,  January  29. 
Free  list:  Administrative  features  and  miscellaneous:  Friday,  January  31. 
The  hearings  will  be  conducted  in  the  hearing  room  of  the  committee,  321  House 
of  Representatives  Office  Building. 

Sessions  will  begin  at  10  a.  m.  and  2  p.  m.  unless  otherwise  ordered. 
Persons  desiring  to  be  heard  should  apply  to  the  clerk  of  the  committee  previous 
to  the  date  set  for  the  hearing,  to  be  assigned  time  on  the  program  for  that  day.     In 
making  such  application  the  following  information  should  be  given: 

Name;  permanent  address;  temporary  address  in  Washington;  person,  firm,  or 
corporation  represented;  paragraphs  of  the  act  concerning  which  testimony  will  be 
given;  brief  mention  of  attitude  to  revision  of  the  tariff;  and  the  amount  of  time 
desired. 

In  addition  to  this  the  person  intending  to  give  testimony  should  forward  in  advance 
to  the  clerk  a  copy  of  his  brief  and  of  any  documents  he  desires  to  file  with  the  com- 
mittee. In  preparing  this  brief  it  is  desired  that  the  following  outline  be  observed: 

1.  State  by  items  and  paragraphs  the  changes  in  duties  recommended,  assigning 
in  each  instance  reasons  for  recommendations. 

2.  Estimate  the  increase  or  decrease  of  imports  by  paragraphs  and  items,  which 
would  result  from  suggested  modifications  of  duties. 

3.  Explain  methods  or  experience  relied  upon  in  making  estimates. 

4.  Suggestions  as  to  changes  in  phraseology  of  present  tariff  law. 

5.  Suggestions  as  to  the  betterment  of  the  administrative  features  of  the  present 
law. 

All  briefs  and  other  papers  filed  with  the  committee  should  have  indorsed  on  them 
the  name  and  address  of  the  persons  submitting  them  and  the  numbers  of  the  para- 
graphs of  the  present  tariff  law  to  which  they  relate. 

0.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman. 
DECEMBER  11,  1912. 

in 


IV  PREFACE. 

The  time  devoted  to  the  hearings  in  accordance  with  this  notice 
was  distributed  by  tariff  schedules  as  follows,  the  committee  sitting 
as  a  rule  in  both  day  and  evening  sessions: 

Date. 

Schedule  A January  6  and  7. 

Schedule  B January  8  and  9. 

Schedule  C January  10,  11,  and  14. 

Schedules  D  and  L January  13. 

Schedules  E  and  H January  15. 

Schedule  F • January  17. 

Schedule  M January  17  and  18. 

Schedule  G January  20  and  21. 

Schedule  I January  22  and  23. 

Schedule  J January  24  and  25. 

Schedule  K January  27  and  28. 

Schedule  N Januaiy  29  and  30. 

Free  list,  Administrative  and  Miscellaneous January  31-February  1. 

Beginning  with  January  10  and  with  the  testimony  on  Schedule  C, 
all  witnesses  appearing  before  the  committee  were  sworn  before  giving 
testimony. 

The  stenographic  minutes  of  each  day's  proceedings,  together  with 
the  briefs  and  memorials  filed,  were  printed  and  distributed  usually  on 
the  day  following  and  about  2,500  copies  of  this  first  print  were  thus 
disposed  of  through  a  mailing  list  of  requests  and  on  personal  applica- 
tion. Copies  were  sent  to  each  witness  with  the  request  that  he  make 
necessary  corrections  for  clearness  in  his  statement  and  return  the 
revised  copy  to  the  clerk.  Such  corrections  have  been  observed  in 
preparing  this  revised  edition  of  the  hearings.  In  this  revised  edition 
the  chronological  order  of  the  statements  has  been  disregarded  and  the 
oral  testimony  and  the  papers  filed  on  each  subject  have  been  grouped 
and  arranged  as  near  as  practicable,  according  to  the  paragraphs  of 
the  present  tariff  law. 

A  large  number  of  letters  filed  with  the  committee,  merely  stating 
the  attitude  of  the  writer  or  substantially  repeating  arguments  already 
appearing;  in  the  hearings,  have  not  been  printed  in  this  revised  edition 
but  suchletters  are  in  the  committee's  files  and  accessible  to  the  com- 
mittee. By  this  means  the  size  of  the  volumes  has  been  somewhat 
reduced,  the  printing  has  been  expedited,  and  repetitions  and  dupli- 
cations avoided. 

DANIEL  C.  ROPER, 
Clerk,  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

FEBRUARY  1,  1913. 


CONTENTS. 


SCHEDULE    A. 

Page. 

Preface Ill 

Date  of  hearings IV 

Outline  of  briefs IV 

Time  devoted  to  hearings IV 

Acme  White  Lead  &  Color  Works,  Detroit,  Mich.,  white  lead  and  colors 353 

Allen,  Hon.  A.  G.,  telegram 414 

American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.,  Bradford,  Pa. ,  oxalic  acid 54 

American  Camphor  Refining  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  crude  and  refined  camphor..  128 

American  Chicle  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  gum  chicle 234 

Arnold  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  soaps,  etc 391 

Arnold,  Francis  R.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  fancy,  toilet,  and  castile  soaps,  etc 391 

Badcock,  Robert,  jr.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  cod  oil 288 

Baker  &  Adamson  Chemical  Co.,  Easton,  Pa.,  photographic  chemicals 35 

Baker  &  Bro.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  synthetic  and  refined  camphor 128 

Baker  Castor  Oil  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.: 

Castor  seed,  flaxseed,  castor  oil 251 

Soluble  oil,  alizarin 257 

Batten  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  perfumery 397 

Baugh  &  Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.: 

Charcoal,  blood  char,  etc 119 

Gelatin,  glue,  and  glue  size 221 

Bauer  Chemical  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  chemicals 374 

Beckton  Chemical  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  lithopone 329 

Berry  Bros.,  varnish,  quicksilver,  white  lead,  and  white  pigments 321 

Bird  &  Co.,  New  York  and  Boston,  varnishes 312 

Black  Horn  Leather  Co.,  Great  Bend,  Pa.,  fish  and  cod  oils 296 

Blumauer,  Frank,  Drug  Co.,  sponges 429 

Borgfeldt,  Geo.,  &  Co.,  chemicals,  oils,  paints,  and  perfumery,  etc 66 

Bosson  &  Lane,  Atlantic,  Mass.,  alizarin  and  soluble  oil,  castor  oil 254 

Bowker,  W.  H.,  Boston,  Mass.,  arseniate  of  soda 416 

Boykin,  S.  G.,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  Epsom  salts 236 

Bredt  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  tannic  acid  or  tannin 54 

Brigham,  Louis  S.,  Randolph.  Vt.,  sheet  gelatin 198 

Brigham  Sheet  Gelatin  Co.,  Randolph,  Vt 198 

Bright,  F.  S.,  Washington,  D.  C.,  olive  and  cottonseed  oil 267 

Brindle,  Frank  M.,  chemicals,  oils,  paints,  and  perfumery,  etc 66 

Brown,  H.  W.,  and  others,  laundry  soap 412 

Buddecke,  Win.  A.,  Mineral  Point,  Mo.,  barytes 301 

Callahan,  P.  H.,  Louisville,  Ky.,  varnish  gum,  china-nut  and  soya-bean  oils. .  315 
California  firms  regarding  duty  on  cream  of  tartar,  crude  tartar  or  wine  lees, 

cream  of  tartar,  tartaric  acid 99 

Campbell  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  dyestuffs,  logwood  and  hematine  extracts, 

pastes,  etc 197 

Carpenter,  H.  B.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  animal  charcoal 305 

Cassella  Color  Co.,  New  York  City,  fast  vat  dyes 163 

Chamber  of  Mines  &  Oil,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. ,  borax,  borate  products 122 

Cleveland  Tanning  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  cod  oil 293 

Cochrane  Chemical  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  sulphuric  acid 41 

Cocorullo,  Ferdinand,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  mannit 87 

Colgate  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  santonin,  perfumed  and  laundry  soaps 398 

Columbia  Western  Mills,  West  Pullman,  Chicago,  111.,  oils 73 

Coulston  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  paints,  colors,  pigments,  etc 353 

Crescent  Burner  Manufacturing  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  cut  steatite  or  German 

lava 133 

Crowdus  Drug  Co.,  Dallas,  Tex.,  medicinal  preparations 377 

V 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Cushman,  Allerton  S.,  Washington,  D.  C.,  chemical  industry 8 

Davis,  Albert,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  sponges 431 

Day  &  Son,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  gelatin,  glue,  etc 206 

Debie,  Dr.  J.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  chemical  industry 7 

Delany,  Charles,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  glue  and  gelatin 204 

Dick,  Joseph,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  bone  glues  in  cake  form 217 

Dippel,  William  J.,  New  York  City,  nitrate  of  ammonia 89 

Dodge  &  Olcott  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  oil  of  cloves,  drugs,  chemicals,  etc 68 

Dow  Chemical  Co.,  Midland,  Mich.,  bleaching  powder,  or  chloride  of  lime. . . .  114 

Drury,  Jno.  H.,  Troy,  Ohio,  chlorate  of  potash 371 

Elson  &  Brewer,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  salicylic  acid 30 

Emery,  Lewis,  jr.,  Bradford,  Pa.,  oxalic  acid 54 

Ewing  Fox  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  calcimines,  paints,  and  varnishes 324 

Geigy-ter  Meer  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  tannic  acid  and  nutgall  extracts 53 

Goodrich  &  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  linseed  oil 260 

Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  acetate  of  lead,  sulphide  and  chloride 

of  zinc 326 

Greene,  Hon.  William  S.,  sperm  oil 287 

Griffin  Drug  Co.,  Peekskill,  N.  Y.,  white  lead  (whiting,  Paris  white) 323 

Gudger,  Francis  A.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pyroxylin  compounds 166 

Hamilton,  Francis  E.,  Esq.,  New  York,  salicylic  acid 18 

Harshaw,  Fuller  &  Goodwin  Co..  Cleveland,  Ohio: 

Cream  of  tarter,  tartaric  acid 45 

Crude  and  refined  glycerin 226 

Tartrate  of  lime,  or  wine  lees,  crude 88 

Hart,  Albert,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  raw  sponges 419 

Heller  &  Merz-  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  coal-tar  dyes 137 

Heller  &  Merz  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  ultramarine  blue 310 

Heyden  Chemical  Works,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  salicylic  acid 18 

Hibberd,  N.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  whale  oil,  sulphur  bottoms,  finbacks,  etc...  293 

Higginson  Manufacturing  Co.,  Newburgh,  N.  Y.,  whiting  and  Paris  white 323 

Howard,  Henry,  Boston,  Mass.,  general 1 

Hubbard,  R.  S.,  Philadelphia,  Pa,,  paints 322 

Huff,  Dr.  L.  J.,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  olive  oil 262 

Irsch,  Frank  E.,  New  York,  N .  Y.,  glue  and  gelatin 208 

Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  New  York,  N.  Y.: 

Argols  and  wine  lees,  citrate  of  lime,  lemon  juice,  licorice  root,  etc 101 

Olive,  peppermint,  and  whale  oil 284 

Job  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  cod  oil 288,  298 

Johnson  &  Johnson,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.: 

Chemical  and  pharmaceutical  preparations 6 

Healing,  court,  and  adhesive  plasters 378 

Jones  &  Co.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  castor,  rapeseed,  and  hempseed  oil,  etc 257 

Klipstein,  E.  C.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  indigo  extracts  or  pastes,  etc 227 

Krebs,  H.  J.,  Newport,  Del.,  lithopone,  crude  baryta,  and  zinc  ores 300 

Kubie  Co.,  New  York,  X.  Y.,  chicle 234 

Kuh  &  Valk  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  glue 207 

La  Manna,  Azema  &  Farnan  et  al.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  olive  oil 286 

Lamar  Chemical  Works,  Newark,  N.  J.,  phosphorus 357 

Laundry  soap  manufacturers,  laundry  soap 400 

Leon,  Maurice,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  medicinal  soaps,  alcoholic  and  nonalcoholic 

perfumery 389 

Leousi,  Clonney  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  bleached  sponges 428 

Listers,  A.  C'.,  Works,  Newark,  N.  J.,  animal  charcoal 305 

Lockwood,  Bracket t  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  castile  soap 414 

Longworth,  Hon.  Nicholas,  of  Ohio,  telegram 402 

McCormick  &  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  juniper  berries,  etc 168 

McCormick,  R.  A.,  Baltimore,  Md..  juniper  berries,  insect  flowers,  gum  asa- 

fetida,  marjoram  leaves,  celery  seed,  etc 168 

Mallinckrodt  et  al.,  tannic,  gallic,  and  pyrogallic  acid,  caffeine,  chloroform, 

ethers,  alkalies,  alkaloids,  etc 46 

Mariani,  C.  A.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  olive  oil 278 

Marx  &  Rawolle,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  refined  glycerin 224 

Mechling  Bros.  Manufacturing  Co.,  Camden,  N.  J.: 

Epsom  salts 250 

Silicate  of  sod  a 417 


CONTENTS.  Vn 

Page. 

Mepham  &  Co.,  East  St.  Louis,  111.,  colors 356 

Merck  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  salicylic  acid,  crude  iodine,  opium,  coca  leaves, 

cocaine,  morphine,  etc 28 

Merrimac  Chemical  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.j  hydrate  of  alumina,  etc 94 

Michigan  Ammonia  Works,  Detroit,  Mich.,  ammonia 98 

Michigan  Carbon  Works,  Detroit,  Mich.,  charcoal 115 

Miller,  W.  E.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  gelatins,  glue,  isinglass,  fish  glue 220 

Mousanto  Chemical  Works,   St.   Louis,  Mo.,  phenolphthalein ,  alkalies,   and 

vanillin 79 

National  Association  of  Glue  and  Gelatin  Manufacturers,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 

glue  and  gelatin 204 

National  Association  of  Tanners,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  dying  or  tanning  extracts. .  183 

National  Borax  Co.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  borax,  boracic  acid,  borate  of  lime...  121 
National  Wood  Chemical  Association,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  charcoal,  acetate  of  lime, 

and  wood  alcohol 117 

Natural  Products  Refining  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  bichromate  of  potash,  sul- 
phuric acid 359 

Newark  Chamois  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  cod  oil 293 

New  York  Metal  Ceiling  Co.,  New  York,  N.Y.,  olive  oil 285 

New  York  Tanning  Extract  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  quebracho  extract 182 

Niagara  Alkali  Co.,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  caustic  potash 360 

Nichols,  W.  H.,  jr.-  epsom  salts,  sulphuric,  muriatic,  and  nitric  acids 36 

O'Connell,  Joseph  F.,  coal-tar  dyes  or  colors 158 

Ohio  Chemical  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  epsom  salts 238 

Orr,  John  B.,  Boston,  Mass.,  bone  glue  and  liquid  fish  glue 216 

Orth,  M.  S..  Boston,  Mass.,  tanning  extracts,  nutgalls,  Persian  berries,  hem- 
lock bark,'  etc 192 

Pacific  Coast  Borax  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  boracic  acid  and  borax 125 

Pacific  Mills,  Cocheco  Department,  Dover,  N.  H.,  hydron  blue 165 

Paint  Manufacturers'  Association  of  the  United  States,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 

paints 322 

Paint  Manufacturers'  Association  of  the  United  States,  Detroit,  Mich.,  white 

lead  and  colors . 353 

Park  &  Tilford,  chemicals,  oils,  paints,  and  perfumery,  etc 66 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Co.,  hydrate  of  alumina,  etc 93 

Perth  Amboy  Chemical  Works,  New  York  City,  formaldehyde,  paraformalde- 

hyde 77 

Pfker  &  Co.,  New  York  City: 

Camphor,  refined,  etc 129 

Citric  acid,  lime  and  lemon  juice 43 

Pfister  &  Vogel  Leather  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  Newfoundland  oil 293 

Philadelphia  (Pa.)  Quartz  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  silicate  of  soda 418 

Point  Milling  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  Mineral  Point,  Mo.,  barytes 301 

Pomeroy  &  Fischer,  New  York  City,  paints,  oils,  and  varnishes 348 

Powers-Weightman-Rosengarteii  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  citric  acid,  citrate  of 

lime,  lime  juice 42 

Pratt  Laboratory,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  Epsom  salts 236 

Procter  &  Gamble.  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  soaps 403 

Providence  Drysalters  Co.,  Providence,  R.  I.,  blanc  fixe  and  satin  white 303 

Purves,  Austin  M. ,  hydrate  of  alumina,  etc 92 

Queeny,  John  F.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  phenolphtalein,  alkalies,  and  vanillin 79 

Randolph,   Hollins  N.,   Atlanta,   Ga.,   charcoal,  acetate  of  lime,  and  wood 

alcohol 117 

Reichard,  F.  A.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  dry  colors 307 

Ricksecker,  Theodore,  perfumeries,  toilet  waters,  alcohol,  and  cologne 380 

Ritchie  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  glue 207 

Roessler  &  Hasslacher  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City: 

Ceramic  colors  (metal  oxides) .«. 345 

Cyanide  salts  and  potassium  cyanide 371 

Rueb  &  Gleichman,  Rotterdam,  barytes 302 

Russell  Borate  Mining  Co.,  Ventura,  Cal.,  borax,  boric  acid,  and  borate  of  lime.  124 

Russell,  Henry  M.,  Ventura,  Cal.,  borax,  boric  acid,  and  borate  of  lime 124 

Seabury  &  Johnson,  New  York  City,  surgical  dressings 380 

Schering  &  Glatz,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  camphor 130 

Schoellkopf,  J.  F.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  coal-tar  dyes 134 

Schoellkopf,  Hartford  &  Hanna  Co.,  Buffalo,  N .  Y.,  coal-tar  dyes 134 


VTTT  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Sholes,  J.  G.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  Epsom  salts 238 

Simon,  George,  Garfield,  N.  J.,  salicylic  acid 18 

Skiddy,  W.  W.,  Stamford,  Conn.,  tanning  extracts,  dyewood,  and  bark 170 

Smith,  Alfred  H.,  Co.,  chemicals,  oils,  paints,  and  perfumery,  etc 66 

Snevily,  M.  B.,  New  York  City,  olive  seed,  flaxseed,  and  hempseed 75 

Somers,  Arthur  S.,  New  York  City,  dry  colors  (chrome  colors,    coal-tar  dyes, 

paints,  Paris  green) 330 

Spencer,  Kellogg  &  Sons,  New  York  City,  linseed,  flaxseed,  and  hempseed 

-i                                                                                                                                                                     at  OEcn 

oils 81,  259 

Stengel  &  Rothschild,  Newark,  N.  J.,  oils  and  chemicals 292 

Summers,  Dr.  S.  Lewis,  Fort  Washington,  Pa.,  acetyl-salicylic  acid 

Tartar  Chemical  Co.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  argols 112 

Tennant  Sons  &  Co.,  New  York  City,  nitrate  of  ammonia 89 

Tirrell,  Frederick  N.,  Boston,  Mass.,  chalk,  Paris  white,  whiting  (natural, 

ground,  or  bolted) 131 

Todd,  T.  S.,  &  Co.,  New  York  City: 

Alizarin 252 

Blanc  fixe  and  satin  white 303 

Verona  Chemical  Co.,  North  Newark,  N.  J.,  spices,  peppermint,  clove,  pimento, 

allspice,  etc 70 

Victor  Chemical  Works,  Chicago,  111.,  Epsom  salts 246 

Vogel,  August,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  tanning  extracts,  ethers,  sulphuric  acid 183 

Waddell,  Robert  S.,  Peoria,  111.,  chlorate  of  potash 369 

Wadhams,  William  H.,  New  York  City,  soap 403 

Walton  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  cod  oil 292 

Washburn,  A.  H.,  enameled  paints,  oil,  varnish,  zinc  oxide 312 

Watson,  Herbert,  Charles  County,  Md.,  bicarbonate  of  potash 83 

Weil,  Jacob,  New  York  City,  medicinal  preparations 375 

White,  William  A.,  gallic  and  pyrogallic  acids 31 

Wilckes,  Martin  Wilckes  Co.,  New  York  City,  lampblack  (bone,  ivory,  or  vege- 
table)   304 

Williams,  C.  K.,  &  Co.,  Easton,  Pa.,  ourl  (siennas,  lead,  and  bichromate  of 

potash  or  soda) 307 

Wrigley  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  chicle 235 

Yahr  &  Lange  Drug  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  medicinal  preparations 376 

Zucca,  Antonio,  olive  oil,  cottonseed  oil 274 


SCHEDULE  B. 

Page. 

Agard,  E.  A.,  Fairbury,  111.,  glass  bottles 760 

Alabama  Marble  Co.,  and  others,  marble,  etc 920 

Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Glassrnere,  Pa.,  and  others,  plate  glass 835 

Allegany  Window  Glass  Co.,  Port  Allegany,  Pa.,  window  glass 815 

Altenberg,  G.  P.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  vacuum  bottles,  jars,  carafes 752 

American  Association  of  Flint  and  Lime  Glass  Manufacturers,  glass  cutters 739 

American  Association  of  Portland  Cement  Manufacturers,  cement,  lime 438 

American  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  carbon  brushes,  etc 697 

American  Clay  Co.,  Akron,  Colo.,  fuller's  earth 543 

American  Clay  Producers'  Association,  Macon,  Ga.,  china  clay 528 

American  Ever  Ready  Co.,  carbon  clinkers 683 

American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union,  glass  and  glassware 710,  743 

American  Optical  Co.,  Southbridge,  Mass.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 862 

American  Plate  Glass  Industry,  plate  glass '835 

Ansco  Co.,  Binghamton,  N.  Y.,  lenses,  cameras,  etc 895 

Armstrong,  Theodore,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  bauxite 520 

Asheville  Mica  Co.,  Asheville,  N.  C.,  mica 555 

Ashley,  George  W.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  marble,  etc 936 

Association  of  American  Portland  Cement  Manufacturers,  cement,  lime 449 

Atlas  Roofing  Co.,  Xewburgh,  N.  Y.,  fire-brick  tiles 435 

Auerbach,  Joseph  S.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  plate  glass 821 

Baldwin,  A.  H.,  Washington,  D.  C.,  cement  imports  into  Canal  Zone 460 

Barber,  Asphalt  Paving  Co.,  asphalt 486 

Bausch  &  Lorub  Optical  Co.,  Rochester,  X.  Y.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 882 

Benton  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Benton,  Ark.,  bauxite 521 

Blake,  Will  T. ,  pottery 680 


CONTENTS.  DC 

Page. 

Boggs,  F.  C.,  Washington,  D.  C.,  cement 461 

Borgfeldt  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pottery 676 

Brantley,  Hon.  W.  G.,  asphaltum 505 

Brotherhood  of  Potters,  white  chinaware 631 

Brown,  S.  H.,  Asheville,  N.  C.,  mica 555 

Brown,  W.  Vance,  Asheville,  N.  C.,  mica 556 

Burgess,  William,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  pottery,  china,  etc 593 

Burley  &  Tyrell  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  pottery 683 

California  Camera  Club,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  lenses,  etc 891 

Carey,  H.  D.,  Scranton,  Pa.,  cut  glass 744 

Casey,  Charles  L.,  Cambridge,  Ohio,  pottery 587 

Champion  Carbon  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  carbon 689 

Champion  Coated  Paper  Co.,  Hamilton,  Ohio,  china  clay 530 

Chavant  Manufacturing  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  carbon 687 

Chrystall,  Ckarles  B.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pumice  stone 484 

City  of  Mobile,  Mobile,  Ala.,  asphalts 510 

Clow  &  Sons,  Chicago,  111.,  marble 941 

Clyde,  J.  L.,  Olean,  N.  Y.,  glass  bottles 707 

Corliss  Carbon  Co.,  Bradford,  Pa.,  carbons,  etc 686,  702 

Curie,  Smith  &  Maxwell,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  stained  window  glass,  etc 906 

Cut  Glass  Manufacturers'  Association,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  cut  glass 751 

Denny  &  Wright,  Rome,  Ga.,  asphaltum 505 

Dorflinger,  William  F.,  glass  cutters,  etc 739 

Feeney  &  Devanny  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  marble 940 

Fies,  Eugene,  Birmingham,  Ala.,  asphalts 506 

Forrest,  Edwin  J.,  Pyriton,  Ala.,  mica 561 

Friedlaender,  Oscar  O.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  hollow  glassware,  shades,  chimneys.  776 

Gemnert,  G.,  New  York  City,  lenses,  cameras,  etc 897 

Gennert,  G.  C.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  opera  and  field  glasses,  etc 883 

Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  glass  and  glassware 709 

Glassworkers'  Union,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  imported  glassware 776 

Gostling,  Charles  R.,  Eustis,  Fla.,  kieselguhr  (diatomite) 546 

Grant,  Adolph,  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  tiles 437 

Graves,  Henry  B.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 873 

Great  Southern  Mica  Co.,  Asheville,  N.  C.,  mica 556 

Grindstaff,  B.  C.,  Asheville,  N.  C.,  mica 556 

Guernsey  Earthenware  Co.,  Cambridge,  Ohio,  pottery 587 

Hammill  &  Gillespie,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  fuller  s  earth 545 

Hamilton,  Alice,  Chicago,  111.,  pottery 682 

Hamilton,  F.  E.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 881 

Hanold,  Frank  J.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  granite,  etc 942 

Hastings  Pavement  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  asphalts 507 

Hays,  D.  A.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  glass  and  glassware 709 

Henry  Marble  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  marble 939 

Hilton,  H.  R.,  window  glass 803 

Homer  Laughlin  China  Co.,  Newell,  W.  Va.,  pottery 679 

Howard,  William  M.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  asphaltum 502 

Huke,  Herman  W.,  Torrington,  Conn.,  lime 464 

Hutchins,  Frank  H.,  white  chinaware G31,  365 

"Icy-Hot"  Bottle  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  vacuum  bottles,  jars,  carafes 752 

Iowa  State  Highway  Commission,  Ames,  Iowa,  asphalts 510 

Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pumice  stone 480 

Jackson  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  and  others,  marble,  etc 928 

Jackson,  C.  D.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  marble,  etc 928 

Jacoby  &  Son  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  marble 940 

Jenkins,  Harry,  Alton,  111.,  glass  bottles 703 

Johnston  Glass  Co.,  Hartford  City,  Ind.,  window  glass,  etc 777 

Johnston,  J.  R.,  Hartford  City,  Ind.,  window  glass,  etc 777 

Jones,  Jerome,  Boston,  Mass.,  earthenware,  china,  glass 612 

Jost,  Henry  L.,  Kansas  Citv,  Mo.,  asphalts 509 

Keene  Mica  Products  Co.,  Keene,  N.  H.,  mica 562 

King,  J.  B.,  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  and  others,  plaster  rock,  crude  gypsum. .  471 

Kirchberger,  M.,  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  and  others,  glassware 765 

Kolb,  George,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  decorated  china 668 

Lane,  T.  M.,  stained  window  glass 901 

Lesley,  Robert  W.,  cement,  lime 438 

Lessler,  Montague,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  plaster  rock,  crude  gypsum 470 


X  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Limoges  China  Co.,  Sebring,  Ohio,  pottery 680 

M.  &  G.  Mica  Co.,  Pyriton,  Ala.,  mica 561 

McDonald,  Chas.,  Marble  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  marble 940 

Marble  Industry  Employers'  Association,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  marble 920 

Marquardt  Marble  &  Granite  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  marble 940 

Mayer,  Frederick  E.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  stained  window  glass 905 

Mayer  &  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  stained  window  glass 901 

Merrimac  Chemical  Co.,  bauxite 519 

Meyer  Co.,  New  York,  N .  Y.,  quarry,  tiles 436 

Meyer,  Max,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  lenses  cameras,  etc 899 

Meyer,  W.  C.,  Spokane,  Wash.,  electric-light  bulbs 765 

Mica  Association,  mica 551 

Martin-Copeland  Co.,  Providence,  R.  I.,  lenses,  cameras,  etc 900 

Moore,  R.  M.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  moving-picture  cameras 901 

Morgan,  Peter  W.,  china  clay 528 

Moulton,  H.  G.,  Rockland,  Me.,  cement 455 

Mungesser  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  carbon 696 

Murphey,  Elmer  R.,  Chicago  and  New  York,  pumice  stone 474 

National  Association  of  Granite  Dealers,  granite,  etc 942 

National  Brotherhood  of  Operative  Potters,  pottery 635,  680 

National  Carbon  Co. ,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  carbons 697 

National  Vial  and  Bottle  Manufacturers'  Association,  glass  bottles 707 

National  Window  Glass  Association,  window  glass 785 

Neenan,  J.  M.,  window  glass 788 

Neilson,  Winthrop  C.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  bauxite,  alumina 510 

Nelson,  N.  0.,  Marble  Co.,  Edwardsville,  111.,  marble 946 

New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.,  Rockland,  Me.,  cement 457 

Newark  Lime  &  Cement  Manufacturing  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.,  crude  gypsum 473 

Munn,  C.  S.,  fluorspar 531 

Ornamental  Glass  Manufacturers'  Association,  stained-glass  windows 910 

Pedrara  Onyx  Co.,  San  Diego,  Gal.,  onyx 941 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  bauxite 520 

Perkins  Goodwin  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  china  clay  or  kaolin,  earths,  glassware.  529 

Peoria  Stone  and  Marble  Works,  Peoria,  111.,  marble,  etc 939 

Perry,  John  F.,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.,  glass  bottles 707 

Pitcairn,  W.  S.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pottery 564,  580,  586 

Pitkin,  E.  II.,  Chicago,  111.,  pottery,  crockery,    earthenware,  china 607 

Pure  Carbon  Co.,  Wellsville,  N.  Y.,  carbons,"etc 695 

Reisinger,  Hugo,  New  York.  N.  Y.,  carbons,  etc 689 

Republic  Mining  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  bauxite,  alumina 510 

Rhodes,  James  H.,  &  Co.,  Chicago  and  New  York,  pumice  stone 474 

Richardson,  John,  Boston,  Mass.,  china  clay  of  kaolin 521 

Richardson  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  china  clay  or  kaolin 521 

Rock  Island  Batteiy  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  coal-gas  retort  carbon,  etc 697 

Rockland  &  Rockport  Lime  Co.,  Rockland,  Me.,  lime 464 

Rosenberger,  John  A..  Alexandria,  Ind.,  glass  and  glassware 710 

Rosiclare  Lead  and  Fluor  Spar  Mines,  Rosiclare  and  Fairview,  111.,  fluor  spar.  543 

Rowe,  T.  W.,  Toledo,  Ohio,  glass,  glassware,  etc 710 

Rudd,  Henry  W.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  asphalt 507 

Salomon.  F.  A.,  &  Bro.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  fuller's  earth 545 

Sargent,  Paul  D.,  Washington,  D.  C.,  asphaltum 502 

Scammell,  H.  B.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  pottery 563 

Schwarz,  Laz.  Mobile.  Ala.,  asphalts 510 

Scott,  M.  F.,  Benton,  Ark.,  bauxite 521 

Semon  Bache  &  Co.,  Xew  York,  N.  Y.,  window  glass,  plate  glass 816,  848 

Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  lenses,  etc 892 

Sewall,  Arthur  W.,  asphaltum,  bitumen 486 

Sewall,  John  S.,  marble,  etc 920 

Shearn,  Clarence  J.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  lampshades  and  chimneys 775 

Shipway  &  Bro.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  marble 941 

Simmons,  Fred  G.,  Milwaukee,  Wig.,  lake  asphalts,  petroleum  residuum  or 

blown-oil  asphalts 506 

Sisson  Marble  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  marble,  etc 936 

Solari,  Luigi,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  pumice  stone 480 

Southern  Asphalt  &  Construction  Co.,  Birmingham,  Ala.,  asphalts 506 

Southern  Gypsum  Co.,  North  Holston,  Va.,  crude  gypsum 467 


CONTENTS.          .  XI 

Page. 

Speer  Carbon  Co.,  St.  Marys,  Pa.,  carbons,  etc 685 

Stackpole  Carbon  Co.,  St.  Marys,  Pa.,  carbons 686 

Standard  Diatomite  Co. ,  Eustis,  Fla. ,  kieselguhr  (diatomite) • 546 

Standard  Marble  Works,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  marble 939 

Standard  Optical  Co.,  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 873 

Stevens,  D.  F.,  Danbury,  Conn.,  window  glass 820 

Stone,  William  A.,  window  glass 785 

Storrs,  Charles  P.,  Owego,  N.  Y.,  mica 547 

Taylor-Hobson  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 881 

Thurston,  F.  W.,  &  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  pumice  stone 485 

Tilton  Optical  Co.,  Tilton,  N.  H.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc : 880 

Tomkins,  Calvin,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  crude  gypsum 473 

Traitel,  Benjamin  D.,  New  York.  N.  Y.,  marble 911 

Underbill,  Geo.  H.,  Boston,  Mass.,  lenses,  cameras,  etc 898 

United  States  Incandescent  Lamp  Co.,  electric-light  bulbs,  electric  lamps 763 

United  States  Lens  Co. ,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 878 

United  States  Potters'  Association,  pottery,  china,  etc 593 

United  States  Stoneware  Co.,  Akron,  Ohio,  stoneware 563 

Vereinigte  Lansitzer  Glaswerke,  A.  G.,  New  York  Branch,  glass  and  glassware.  708 

Vermont  Marble  Co.,  and  others,  marble,  etc 918 

Voorhis,  J.  W.,  carbon  clinkers 683 

Waddell,  R.  J.,  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  schumachersche  fabrik  or  German 

rubbing  bricks,  hones,  and  whetstones 478 

Waling,  Donald,  Keene,  N.  H.,  mica 562 

Watson  Bros.,  Boston,  Mass.,  mica 561 

Watts,  Ethelbert,  consul  general,  Brussels,  glass  industry 820 

Wells,  Charming  M.,  Southbridge,  Mass.,  spectacles,  lenses,  etc 862 

Wells,  W.  E.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio,  white  tableware 636 

Whitacre,  J.  J.,  white  tableware 647 

Wilder,  Frank  A.,  North  Holston,  Va.,  crude  gypsum 467 

Williams,  Brown  &  Earle,  Philadelphia,  Pa. ,  lenses,  etc 891 

Wills,  J.  M.,  Akron,  Ohio,  stoneware 563 

Witnesses,  swearing  of 946 

Yost,  George  W.,  Bellaire,  Ohio,  glass  bottles 707 


SCHEDULE  A. 
CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND  PAINTS. 


ZTTT 


SCHEDULE  A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND  PAINTS. 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  6  and  7,  1913. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Oscar  W.  Underwood 
in  the  chair. 

Present  with  the  chairman:  Messrs.  Harrison,  Shackleford, 
Kitchin,  James,  Rainey,  Dixon,  Hull,  Peters,  Payne,  Hill,  Needham, 
Palmer,  Longworth . 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  The  clerk  will 
dispense  with  the  roll  call. 

STATEMENT  OF  HENRY  HOWARD,  BOSTON,  MASS.,  CHAIRMAN 
OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  MANUFACTURING 
CHEMISTS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Weed  is  secretary  of  the  Manu- 
facturing Chemists'  Association,  and  he  can  not  attend.  I  am 
appearing  for  the  executive  committee,  being  chairman  of  the 
executive  committee.  My  name  is  Henry  Howard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Henry  Howard  ? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Henry  Howard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Howard,  the  committee  will  be  glad  if  you 
can  make  your  statement  in  15  minutes. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  can  easily  do  that.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Manufacturing  Chemists'  Association  of  the  United  States  has  been 
assigned  among  the  first  to  be  heard  at  the  opening  hearing  of  your 
committee  on  January  6,  it  is  perhaps  proper  that  this  association 
should  first  raise  the  question  of  the  best  method  of  procedure  with 
respect  to  all  investigations  regarding  Schedule  A,  to  the  end  that 
the  true  conditions  of  the  chemical  industry  may  be  fairly  and 
accurately  ascertained. 

Furthermore,  this  association  must  necessarily  confine  itself  to  the 
broad  question  of  the  character  and  method  of  investigation,  as  the 
association  has  not  the  available  data  necessary  to  enable  it  to  speak 
specifically  regarding  the  many  and  varied  items  of  the  chemical 
schedule.  The  association  will  therefore  address  itself  to  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  expert  investigation,  pointing  out  in  this  regard 
certain  errors  and  inconsistencies  which  have  resulted  from  past 
methods  of  procedure,  and  leave  the  question  ol  the  discussion  of 
individual  items  to  individual  witnesses. 

The  association  has  for  years  given  much  study  to  the  question  of 
tariff  and  tariff  revision.  As  a  result  of  the  experience  thus  gained 
the  association  has  reached,  the  conclusion  that  no  adequate  and 

TS'J.j!)0— VOL  1—13 I  I 


2  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

just  revision  of  Schedule  A  can  be  had  except  after  careful  and 
expert  investigation.  The  association  advocated  this  principle  at 
the  time  of  the  last  revision  in  1908-9.  Again,  in  September,  1911, 
by  resolutions  at  that  time  adopted,  the  association  with  unanimous 
consent  embodied  its  views.  Copies  of  these  resolutions  were  sent 
to  the  members  of  your  committee,  with  a  tender  of  cooperation  in 
any  investigation  which  your  committee  should  then  undertake. 
The  association  again  tenders  its  cooperation. 

The  first  question  which  arises  is  the  creation  of  a  proper  forum 
for  the  taking  of  evidence  and  the  ascertaining  of  the  essential  facts 
and  data.  The  association  feels  strongly  that  no  committee  or  body 
of  the  size  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  can,  as  a  whole,  con- 
duct an  investigation  which  is  so  essentially  technical  as  an  investi- 
gation of  the  chemical  industry.  The  very  fact  of  the  number  pres- 
ent necessarily  prohibits  a  scientific  inquiry  and  results  in  the  intro- 
duction of  collateral  issues  foreign  to  the  topic  of  discussion.  Fur- 
thermore, two  days,  which  is  the  maximum  amount  of  time  assigned 
by  your  committee  to  Schedule  A,  is  hardly  more  than  sufficient  for 
presenting  and  cataloguing  the  many  briefs  from  those  who  undoubt- 
edly wish  to  be  heard. 

For  some  time  the  members  of  this  association  have  held  the 
opinion  that  a  satisfactory  investigation  can  only  be  conducted  by 
a  committee  or  commission,  nonpartisan  in  composition,  which  shall 
have  a  tenure  of  office  of  sufficient  duration  to  complete  work  of 
great  magnitude,  and  which  shall  be  clothed  with  the  necessary 
authority  to  employ  competent  experts  and  hear  the  testimony  of 
those  possessing  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  subject.  The  associa- 
tion has  not  changed  its  attitude  in  this  regard;  but,  in  the  absence 
of  an  investigation  by  such  a  body,  this  association  respectfully 
requests  that  your  committee  consider  the  advisability  of  delegating 
to  a  subcommittee  of  its  own  members,  or  other  duly  constituted 
bod}T,  the  authority  to  investigate  the  chemical  industry,  with  power 
to  employ  sufficient  and  competent  experts  and  to  hear  testimony. 
Such  a  subcommittee  or  body,  when  fortified  by  its  own  experts, 
should  be  able  to  conduct  hearings  orderly  in  procedure  and  scien- 
tific in  character.  No  report  should  be  required  nor  any  legislation 
attempted  until  such  time  as  the  investigating  committee  had  acquired 
sufficient  data  and  knowledge  of  the  industry  to  be  able  not  only  to 
comprehend  the  relation  which  eacJi  product  bears  to  the  other 
products  in  its  own  schedule  but  also  the  relation  which  each  product 
bears  to  the  entire  industry  of  the  country. 

In  this  connection  the  association  refers  without  comment  to  the 
report  of  Mr.  Xagel,  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  Apparently 
there  exists  with  this  department  sufficient  authority  to  conduct  an 
expert  tariff  investigation  by  virtue  of  an  act  passed  several  years 
ago,  it  only  requiring  an  effective  appropriation  to  make  this  act  of 
real  working  value.  The  association,  however,  does  not  pretend  to 
discuss  the  validity  of  this  act  but  rather  offers  it  as  a  suggestion  for 
the  consideration  of  your  committee  in  connection  with  the  question 
of  expert  investigation,  which  alone  is  of  fundamental  importance. 

Your  committee  has  already  had  under  discussion  the  chemical 
schedule.  Your  Report  on  Schedule  A,  submitted  to  the  House  on 
February  Hi.  1912,  is  a  very  comprehensive  document,  considering 
the  limited  amount  of  time  which  vour  committee  had  to  devote  to 


SCHEDULE   A.  3 

the  problem.  The  proposed  bill  which  is  embodied  in  the  report 
known  as  H.  R.  20182  contains  many  salutary  changes  in  the  ex- 
isting law  and  offers  many  changes  in  present  classifications  which 
would  undoubtedly  prove  beneficial. 

The  bill  II.  R.  20182,  however,  is  far  from  perfect.  The  changes 
in  classification  are  hardly  fundamental,  and  the  revision  of  rates  is 
distinctly  illogical  in  that  the  relation  of  raw  material  to  finished 
product  is  persistently  ignored,  the  relation  of  one  product  to  another 
is  apparently  in  many  instances  misunderstood,  and  there  are  many 
other  errors  which  would  undoubtedly  be  eradicated  in  the  light  of 
expert  consideration.  The  report  contains  a  glossary  on  Schedule 
A,  marked  "Appendix  C."  Tnis  document  is,  however,  little  more 
than  its  name  indicates,  a  mere  glossary  or  translation  of  technical 
chemical  terms  into  laymen's  English.  The  information  contained 
hi  this  document  is  but  the  a  b  c  to  a  chemical  education,  and  it  is 
submitted  without  a  suggestion  of  disrespect  that  the  glossary  is  of 
practically  no  avail  to  the  lay  mind  without  the  constant  interpreta- 
tion of  the  chemical  expert. 

In  thus  freely  criticizing  the  bill  and  the  accompanying  report  on 
Schedule  A,  our  association  does  not  wish  to  adopt  the  attitude  of 
superior  wisdom.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  with  the  greatest  respect  for 
the  .enormous  task  before  your  committee  that  we  venture  to  sug- 
gest that  no  adequate  revision  can  be  had  under  the  ordinary  meth- 
ods of  procedure  which  have  characterized  revisions  in  times  past. 

Regarding  the  question  of  adjustment  of  rates  as  between  raw 
materials  and  finished  product,  our  association  has  made  a  careful 
analysis  of  H.  R.  20182  as  compared  with  the  act  of  1909.  For  the 
purpose  of  this  analysis  the  so-called  "caucus  print,"  which  is  Appen- 
dix B  of  your  report,  has  been  used.  The  "caucus  print"  gives 
definite  data  and  an  estimate  of  revenue,  etc.,  for  a  12-months' 
period  regarding  approximately  300  specific  articles  contained  in 
the  76  paragraphs  of  the  duitable  list.  Of  these  300  articles,  97, 
or  approximately  one-third,  may  be  classified  as  raw  materials,  and 
the  rest,  or  approximately  two-thirds,  may  be  classified  as  finished 
product. 

Of  the  97  different  raw  materials  made  dutiable  under  the  pro- 
posed bill  (H.  R.  20182),  80  were  entered  free  under  the  Payne  act  of 
1909.  Of  the  remaining  17  articles,  the  duty  in  almost  every  instance 
was  increased  from  the  rates  under  the  existing  law. 

The  "caucus  print"  further  shows  that  the  total  revenue  derived 
from  Schedule  A  under  the  Payne  act  for  1911  amounted  to 
$12,966,545,  while  the  estimated  revenue  for  a  12-months'  period 
under  H.  R.  20182  amounts  to  $16,170,157,  or  an  increase  hi  revenue 
of  nearly  $3,500,000.  This  increased  revenue,  however,  results 
entirely  from  the  increase  of  rates  on  raw  materials,  the  revenue  from 
the  above-mentioned  raw  materials  under  the  act  of  1909  amounting 
to  $1,826,955,  while  the  estimate  for  a  12-months'  period  for  the  same 
raw  materials  under  H.  R.  20182  amounts  to  $6,081,060,  or  an  increase 
of  approximately  $4.000,000.  At  the  same  time,  under  the  proposed 
bill,  the  rates  of  duty  on  finished  products  are  very  materially  de- 
creased with  the  estimated  result  that  the  revenue  for  a  12-months' 
period  on  finished  products  would  amount  to  $10,089,097  as  against 
$11,139,590  revenue  under  the  act  of  1909,  or  an  estimated  decrease 


4  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

in  revenue  by  virtue  of  the  decrease  in  rates  on  finished  products  of 
more  than  $1,000,000. 

Thus  it  is  apparent  that  the  estimated  increase  in  revenue  under 
II.  R.  20182  comes  entirely  from  a  most  radical  increase  in  rates  on 
raw  materials,  an  increase  so  great, that  a  loss  in  revenue  on  finished 
products  of  approximately  $1,000,000,  owing  to  a  drastic  decrease  i  i 
the  average  rate  from  about  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  about  16  pe.' 
cent  ad  valorem,  is  not  only  offset  but  a  net  increase  in  revenue  i  > 
estimated  of  nearlv  $3.500,000. 

A  complete  analysis,  showing  a  comparison  of  the  Payne  Act  and 
H.  R.  20182  with  respect  to  changes  in  duties  on  raw  materials  and 
finished  products,  may  be  found  in  a  brief  of  this  association  printed 
in  the  Hearings  and  Statements  before  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
United  States  Senate,  March  14  to  22,  1912,  at  pages  438-454. 

This  means  a  double  hardship  to  the  manufacturer.  It  not  only 
removes  his  protection  against  the  more  favorable  conditions  of  manu- 
facture existing  in  foreign  countries,  but  it  renders  those  conditions 
even  more  difficult,  if  not  prohibitive,  by  taxing  the  basic  materials 
which  enter  into  the  finished  product. 

It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  this  result  in  its  entirety  was  intended 
as  a  matter  of  policy  by  your  committee,  for  such  a  policy,  if  pursued 
for  all  schedules,  would  inevitably  bring  disaster  to  many  industries 
with  the  consequent  hardship  to  labor  unemployed.  The  result,  in 
a  large  number  of  instances  at  least,  must  have  been  brought  about 
by  a  misconception  of  the  basic  character  of  many  commodities — a 
misconception  which  will  inevitably  occur  in  the  absence  of  a  thor- 
oughly expert  investigation. 

The  American  manufacturers  are  not  only  in  competition  with 
each  other,  but  they  arc  also  in  competition  with  the  great  German 
syndicates,  combinations  which  under  the  laws  of  this  country  would 
undoubtedly  be  declared  illegal  and  void.  These  large  German  com- 
binations effectually  control  the  market,  regulate  prices,  and  are  able 
to  dump  surplus  product  into  this  country  at  prices  against  which 
our  domestic  manufacturers  can  not  compete.  The  existence  of  the 
German  syndicates  is  recognized  in  the  report  of  your  committee. 

The  question  of  the  dumping  of  surplus  product  into  this  country 
by  foreign  manufacturers  is  a  matter  of  most  serious  concern  to  the 
chemical  industry.  The  Manufacturing  Chemists'  Association  strongly 
recommends  to  your  committee  a  thorough  consideration  of  this  im- 
portant subject,  and  in  this  regard  calls  attention  to  section  6  of  the 
Canadian  customs  tariff  act  of  1907.  which  provides  as  follows: 

In  the  case  of  articles  exported  to  Canada  of  a  class  or  kind  made  or  produced  in 
Canada,  if  the  export  or  actual  selling  price  to  an  importer  in  Canada  is  less  than  the 
fair  market  value  of  the  same  article  when  sold  for  home  consumption  in  the  usual 
and  ordinary  course  in  the  country  whence  exported  to  Canada  at  the  time  of  its 
exportation  to  Canada,  there  shall,  in  addition  to  the  duties  otherwise  established,  be 
levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  such  article,  on  its  importation  into  Canada,  a  special 
duty  (or  dumping  duty)  equal  to  the  difference  between  the  said  Selling  price  of  the 
article  for  export  and  the  said  fair  market  value  thereof  for  home  consumption;  and 
such  special  duty  ('or  dumping  duty)  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  such 
irticle,  although  it  is  not  otherwise  dutiable. 

Provided,  That  the  said  special  duty  shall  not  exceed  fifteen  per  cent  ad  valorem 
in  any  ca^e. 

The  higher  cost  of  labor  in  this  country,  as  compared  with  foreign 
countries,  is  a  disadvantage  which  daily  confronts  our  domestic 
manufacturer.  On  pages  -'-505  and  37U  of  your  report  statistics  are 


SCHEDULE   A.  5 

given  which  throw  much  light  on  the  difference  between  this  country 
and  Germany.  From  this  authority  it  appears*that  for  1910  there 
were  employed  in  this  country  in  the  cnemical  industry  311,537 
officials  and  employees,  at  a  total  salary  or  wage  of  $197,251,000,  or 
an  average  of  $633.12  per  man.  The  statistics  given  for  Germany 
show  the  average  salary  or  wage  in  172  different  establishments  to  be 
from  $291.55  to  $318.44. 

These  and  many  other  disadvantages  are  all  factors  in  drafting  any 
revision  of  the  tariff  which  shall  be  adequate  and  just. 

It  is  submitted,  in  conclusion,  that  if  the  interests  of  the  manu- 
facturer are  to  be  considered  and  the  high  standard  of  the  Ameri- 
can wage  earner  to  be  maintained,  your  committee  should  at  the 
very  outset  take  under  most  careful  consideration  the  best  method 
of  conducting  its  investigations,  to  the  end  that,  whatever  the  theory 
of  revision  may  be,  the  revision,  when  made,  shall  contain  a  readjust- 
ment of  classifications  and  rates  which  shall  be  economically  and 
scientifically  just. 

The  Manufacturing  Chemists'  Association  of  the  United  States 
comprises  the  following  members: 

Barrett  Manufacturing  Co.,  17  Battery  Place,  New  York  City; 
Baugh  &  Sons  Co.,  20  South  Delaware  Avenue,  Philadelphia,  Pa.; 
Butterworth  &  Judson  Co.,  60  Wall  Street,  New  York  City;  Henry 
Bower  Chemical  Manufacturing  Co.,  2185  Grays  Ferry  Road,  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.;  The  Cassella  Color  Co.,  182  Front  Street,  New  York 
City;  B.  P.  Clapp  Ammonia  Co.,  257  Broadway,  New  York  City; 
Cochrane  Chemical  Co.,  55  Kilby  Street,  Boston,  Mass.;  Columbia 
Chemical  Co.,  1618  Frick  Building,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  Columbia  Chem- 
ical Works,  11  Broadway,  New  York  City;  Consolidated  Color  & 
Chemical  Co.,  122  Hudson  Street,  New  York  City;  Contact  Process 
Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.;  Davison  Chemical  Co.,  601  Keyser  Building,  Bal- 
timore, Md.;  Detroit  Chemical  Co.,  190  Junction  Avenue,  Detroit, 
Mich.;  General  Chemical  Co.,  25  Broad  Street,  New  York  City; 
Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Harrison  Bros.  &  Co.  (Inc.), 
Thirty-fifth  Street  and  Grays  Ferry  Road,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  The 
Heyden  Chemical  Works,  135  William  Street,  New  York  City; 
Hooker  Electro  Chemical  Co.,  New  York  City;  Hudson  River  Aniline 
Color  Works,  Albany,  N.  Y.:  Heller  &  Merz  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. ; 
Charles  Lennig  &  Co.  (Inc.),  112  South  Front  Street,  Philadelphia, 
Pa.;  Thomas  Leland  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Mallinckrodt  Chemical 
Works,  3600  North  Second  Street,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Merrimac  Chemical 
Co.,  33  Broad  Street,  Boston,  Mass.;  Merck  &  Co.,  New  York  City; 
Momanto  Chemical  Works,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Mutual  Chemical  Co.  of 
America,  West  Side  and  Fulton  Avenues,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.;  National 
Ammonia  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Naugatuck  Chemical  Co.,  Nauga- 
tuck,  Conn.;  New  England  Gas  &  Coke  Co.,  40  Water  Street,  Boston, 
Mass.;  New  York  Quinine  &  Chemical  Co.,  114  William  Street,  New 
York  City;  Nichols  Cooper  Co.,  25  Broad  Street,  New  York  City; 
Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Co.,  115  Chestnut  Street,  Philadel- 
phia, IPa. ;  Charles  Pfizer  &  Co.  (Ltd.),  81  Maiden  Lane,  New  York 
City;  Philadelphia  Quartz  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Powers-Weight- 
man-Rosengarten  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Roessler  &  Hasslacher 
Chemical  Co.,  100  William  Street,  Xew  York  City;  Rumford  Chemical 
Works,  Providence,  R.  I.;  Solvay  Process  Co.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.; 


6  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

Schoellkopf,  Hartford  &  Hanna  Co.,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.;  Tartar  Chemical 
Co.,  135  William  StFeet,  New  York  City. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  one  minute.  I  will  say  to  the  members  of 
the  committee  that  the  clerk  and  chairman  have  tried  to  divide  the 
time  among  these  witnesses,  and  I  will  be  very  glad  if  the  witnesses 
may  be  allowed  to  consume  their  portion  of  the  time,  and  then  if 
the  committee  desire  to  cross-examine  the  witness,  let  that  time 
come  out  of  the  time  of  the  committee,  and  not  out  of  the  witness's 
time.  Mr.  Howard  has  used  up  all  of  his  time  now,  but  if  any  member 
of  the  committee  desires  to  ask  him  any  questions  they  may  do  so; 
if  not,  we  will  call  the  next  witness. 

VIEWS  OF   JOHNSON  &  JOHNSON,  NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J.,  ON 
THE  CHEMICAL  SCHEDULE. 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J.,  January  28, 1913. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  O. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  consideration  of  the  tariff  schedules,  especially 
Schedule  A,  which  applies  to  chemical  and  pharmaceutical  prep- 
arations, etc.,  we  desire  to  present  the  following  facts  for  your 
consideration : 

\Yhile  we  do  not  contend  that  the  manufacturers  of  these  products 
need  a  high  protective  tariff,  they  should  have  a  certain  amount  of 
consideration.  Taking  our  own  line  as  a  basis  it  is  a  fact  that  nearly 
all  of  the  goods  which  we  manufacture  originated  and  have  been 
developed  by  American  industry.  The  manufacture  of  these  prod- 
ucts lias  been  followed  and  in  some  instances  grossly  imitated  by 
foreign  manufacturers.  In  many  countries  when  we  attempt  to 
compete  with  European  manufacturers  in  then:  home  market  we 
are  met  not  only  with  conditions  of  lower  cost  of  labor  and  lower 
cost  of  raw  materials  but  a  high  protective  tariff.  For  example, 
in  Germany,  whore  there  are  a  large  number  of  manufacturers  of 
goods  in  our  line,  and  which  manufacturers  have  followed  our  methods 
and  our  goods,  there  is  a  tariff  ranging  from  25  to  60  per  cent  on 
manufactured  products.  Should  manufactured  products  be  admitted 
free  of  duty,  in  our  line  we  would  be  met  with  a  peculiar  condition 
of  an  almost  prohibitive  tariff  in  Germany,  with  German  products 
admitted  to  this  country  either  free  or  at  a  normal  rate. 

Further,  we  believe  that  manufacturers  in  this  line  should  be 
encouraged  from  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  great  disasters,  wars, 
and  the  like,  experience  lias  shown  that  our  people  must  depend 
on  American  manufacturers.  For  instance,  in  such  late  disasters 
as  the  Galveston  flood,  the  Johnstown  flood,  the  San  Francisco 
earthquake,  the  Spanish- American  War,  and  the  like,  it  was  impera- 
tive that  there  should  bo  a  source  of  supply  immediately  accessible. 
This  can  only  obtain  where  there  is  sufficient  encouragement  for 
homo  manufacture  of  these  products.  Our  suggestions  would  be 
;..s  follows : 

The  duly  on  finished  products  should  be  of  such  a  rate  as  to  enable 
homo  manufacturers  to  compote  with  European  manufacturers  in 
1  ho  American  market.  This  would  encourage  the  home  manufacture 
of  these  products. 


SCHEDULE   A.  7 

It  would  insure  a  revenue  to  the  Government  from  continued 
importations. 

It  would  enlarge  the  demand  for  crude  materials  and  encourage 
the  manufacture  of  such  other  raw  material  and  intermediate  products 
as  are  now  imported. 

If,  as  we  understand  is  proposed  in  the  bill  now  being  considered, 
raw  materials  are  taxed  it  will  place  home  manufacture  at  a  disad- 
vantage. 

Should  it  be  advisable  to  levy  duties  on  crude  materials  for  revenue 
purposes,  then  an  increase  of  duty  should  also  be  made  on  the  fin- 
ished products  for  the  encouragement  and  development  of  home 
manufacture. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JOHNSON  &  JOHNSON. 
F.  B.  KELME. 

DE.  J.  BEBIE,   ST.  LOUIS,  MO.,  WRITES   CONCERNING   THE 
CHEMICAL  SCHEDULE. 

ST.  Louis,  Mo.,  February  1,  1913. 
Mr.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  chemical  schedule  being  now  under  discussion  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  I  am  taking  the  liberty  of  submit- 
ting my  views  on  the  subject,  an  action  to  which  I  am  prompted  by 
my  12  years'  experience  as  chemical  engineer. 

H.  R.  20182  as  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  last  fall 
contains  the  extraordinary  feature  of  proposing  to  levy  import  duty 
on  chemical  raw  materials,  and  lowering  or  removing  the  duties  on 
finished  products  made  from  these  very  raw  materials. 

While  I  can  not  conceive  that  it  be  the  deliberate  intention  or 
purpose  of  a  legislative  body  to  cripple  or  destroy  a  hitherto  flour- 
ishing and  growing  industry,  it  is  certain  in  my  mind  that  a  tariff 
bill  such  as  H.  R.  20182,  if  it  becomes  law,  is  bound  to  so  affect 
the  now  existing  chemical  industry  of  this  country.  The  following 
few  arguments  should,  I  believe,  substantiate  my  views. 

A  great  number  of  drug  and  chemical  products  can  not  be  manu- 
factured in  this  country  in  competition  with  European  products, 
unless  duty  is  levied  as  to  offset  the  difference  in  cost  of  manufacture 
here  and  abroad.  As  is  generally  known,  the  higher  cost  of  manu- 
facture in  this  country  over  the  cost  in  Europe  is  due  to  several 
causes — high  wages  paid  to  skilled  and  unskilled  labor;  higher  sal- 
aries paid  to  chemists,  engineers,  and  all  other  professionals;  higher 
first  and  maintenance  cost  of  machinery,  buildings,  and  general 
fixtures. 

The  crude  materials  for  many  drugs  and  chemical  products  are  not 
available  in  this  country,  therefore  these  products  should  remain  on 
the  free  list  in  order  to  enable  the  American  manufacturer  using  these 
raw  materials  to  meet  foreign  competition  with  the  finished  products, 
in  the  manufacture  of  which  these  raw  materials  have  been  used. 

Only  on  that  basis  will  it  be  possible  for  many  branches  of  the 
American  chemical  industry  to  continue  and  to  develop.  To  encour- 
age such  a  development  is  not  only  in  the  interest  of  the  many  thou- 
sands connected  directly  or  indirectly  with  these  industries  but  it  is 


8  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

also  in  the  interest  of  the  Government  and  the  consumer,  because  it 
is  an  established  fact  that  many  of  those  products  which  are  not  manu- 
factured in  this  country  are  selling  at  excessive  prices  and  many 
products  could  be  enumerated  which  are  selling  30  to  50  per  cent 
cheaper  now  that  they  are  also  manufactured  in  this  country.  The 
duty  on  these  products,  which  made  their  home  manufacture  possible, 
therefore  not  only  did  not  increase  the  selling  price  of  these  products, 
but  was  the  actual  cause  of  bringing  it  down  to  a  reasonable  figure. 

That  the  present  duties  are  not  of  a  prohibitive  character  is  demon- 
strated by  the  fact  that  importation  of  dutiable  products  is  steadily 
increasing,  and  the  present  tariff  system  and  principle  of  levying  duties 
should  therefore  be  also  satisfactory  from  the  standpoint  of  Govern- 
ment revenue.  On  the  other  hand  if  duties  should  be  put  on  raw 
materials,  the  importation  would  undoubtedly  decrease  to  a  great 
extent,  because  the  manufacture  of  products  necessitating  such  raw 
materials  would  be  discouraged  and  stopped  as  soon  as  foreign  com- 
petition would  make  such  manufacture  prohibitive.  It  is  therefore 
more  than  likely  that  duties  on  raw  materials  would  prove  to  be  a 
very  unreliable  source  of  revenue. 

If,  however,  changes  are  considered  necessary,  due  consideration 
should  be  given  to  the  arguments  submitted  by  the  various  manufac- 
turing interests,  because  they  are  in  position  to  give  data  and  facts 
which  make  a  thorough  study  of  the  subject  possible.  On  that  basis 
changes  could  be  brought  about  for  revenue  purposes  and  with  the 
object  of  doing  away  with  some  prohibitive  duties  as  may  exist  at 
present  and  without  the  danger  of  inflicting  serious  damage  to  the 
industry. 

Having  at  heart  not  only  my  own  personal  interest  as  a  chemical 
engineer,  but  also  the  one  of  the  profession  and  the  growth  of  the 
American  chemical  industry  as  well,  I  urge  you  to  give  that  important 
branch  of  American  manufacture  in  the  coming  issue  a  fair  hearing 
and  the  chance  for  further  development  to  which  it  is  justly  entitled. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

DR.  J.  BEBIE, 
3717  McDonald  Avenue. 

ALLERTON  S.  CUSHMAN,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  WRITES  REGARD- 
ING   SCHEDULE  A. 

THE  INSTITUTE  OF  INDUSTRIAL  RESEARCH, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  January  27,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD. 

Chairman   Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

f  louse  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  [  have  followed  with  the  closest  attention  the  hearings 
of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  \vitli  reference  to  Schedule  A.  I 
have  also  given  study  to  the  bill,  IT.  R.  20182,  which  was  passed  at  the 
last  session  of  Congress  and  which  was  framed  on  lines  that,  in  the 
general  average,  called  for  distinct  reductions  on  the  finished  products 
of  American  chemical  industry  and  showed  a  tendency  to  place  taxes 
on  raw  materials  previously  on  the  free  list. 

My  position  as  director  of  the  Institute  of  Industrial  Research, 
which  calls  for  cooperative  investigation  work  with  a  great  number 
of  chemical  industries  in  this  coimtrv,  has  led  me  to  the  belief  that 


SCHEDULE   A.  9 

PARAGRAPH  1— ACIDS. 

the  general  policy  of  heavy  reduction  on  finished  products  and 
increase  of  taxation  on  raw  materials  must  inevitably  tend  to  dis- 
courage and,  to  some  extent,  to  destroy  the  chemical  manufacturing 
industry  of  this  country.  There  is  prooably  no  line  of  human  indus- 
try, in  my  opinion,  in  which  this  country  Is  more  justified  in  seeking 
protection  than  in  the  chemical  industries,  nor  is  there  any  line  in 
which  we  are  more  distinctly  led,  up  to  the  present  time,  by  Europe. 
Nevertheless,  we  have  been  making  great  strides  in  this  country, 
especially  in  the  last  ten  years.  Many  of  our  chemical  industries  are 
just  struggling  to  get  ahead  at  the  present  time,  and  although  the 
labor  cost  against  our  chemical  industry  is  much  higher  than  the 
European  cost,  our  American  ingenuity  and  cleverness  in  adapting 
means  to  ends  by  substituting  labor-saving  devices  is  beginning  to 
pull  us  out  to  even  terms.  I  can  not  help  but  feeling  that  if  the 
committee  should  in  their  wisdom  give  very  careful  heed  to  the 
arguments  which  have  been  filed  by  the  manufacturers  they  will 
notice  that,  in  respect  to  Schedule  A  particularly,  there  is  very  little 
indication  of  greed  or  desire  for  undue  or  unjustified  profits.  The 
taxation  of  the  raw  materials  considered  under  Schedule  A,  as  \yell  as 
the  substantial  increase  of  duties  on  finished  materials,  will,  in  my 
opinion,  operate  only  to  the  advantage  of  Germany  and  the  other  big 
manufacturing  countries. 

Only  my  close  touch  with  the  subject  which  I  am  discussing  would 
justify  my  adding  my  word  of  appeal  to  you  in  respect  to  these 
matters. 

Very  sincerely,  yours, 

ALLERTON  S.  CUSHMAN,  Director. 

PARAGRAPH  1: 

Acids :  Acetic  or  pyroligneous  acid,  not  exceeding  the  specific  gravity  of 
one  and  forty-seven  one-thousandths,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound; 
exceeding  the  specific  gravity  of  one  and  forty-seven  one-thousandths,  two 
cents  per  pound ;  acetic  anhydrid,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound ;  boracic 
acid,  three  cents  per  pound;  chromic  acid,  two  cents  per  pound;  citric  acid, 
seven  cents  per  pound;  lactic  acid,  containing  not  over  forty  per  centum 
by  weight  of  actual  lactic  acid,  two  cents  per  pound;  containing  over  forty 
per  centum  by  weight  of  actual  lactic  acid,  three  cents  per  pound;  oxalic 
acid,  two  cents  per  pound;  salicylic  acid,  five  cents  per  pound;  sulphuric 
acid  or  oil  of  vitriol  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  one-fourth  of 
one  cent  per  pound;  tannic  acid  or  tannin,  thirty-five  cents  per  pound; 
gallic  acid,  eight  cents  per  pound;  tartaric  acid,  five  cents  per  pound;  all 
other  acids  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 
For  boracic  acid,  see  also  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  103;  for  thymol  and 

terpin  hydrate,  see  Veiona  Chemical  Co.,  page  71. 

ACIDS. 
SALICYLIC  ACID. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  S.  LEWIS  SUMMERS,  FORT  WASHINGTON,  PA. 

Dr.  SUMMERS.  Our  Government  and  its  citizens  are  being  unjustly 
taken  advantage  of  by  a  8100,000,000  corporation  of  Germany. 
Through  the  inequalities  of  our  tariff  laws,  in  conjunction  with  our 
patent  laws,  and  the  skillful  manufacture  and  dissemination  of 
defamation  calculated  to  discredit  competition,  this  special  interest 


10  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH    1— ACIDS. 

has  patented  control  of  opportunity  and  deprived  the  noncombative 
sick  of  the  use  of  what  would  best  restore  their  health. 

This  corporation  is  selling  in  the  United  States  a  long  list  of  patent 
medicines  at  prices  many  hundred  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  prices  for 
what  they  sell  the  same  products  for  to  all  other  peoples.  The  drug- 
gists of  the  United  States  have  to  pay  43  cents  per  ounce  for  aspirin 
or  acetyl-salicylic  acid.  There  are  most  probably  more  than  10,000 
ounces  of  it  sold  in  this  country  every  day.  It  costs  the  manufac- 
turers of  it  less  than  5  cents  per  ounce  to  produce  it.  All  other  peoples 
can  buy  the  same  identical  substance,  made  by  the  same  corporation, 
for  less  than  10  cents  per  ounce.  The  excess  extortion  filched  from 
the  sick  of  the  United  States  by  this  corporation  of  Germany  for 
acetyl-salicylic  acid  will  most  probably  exceed  in  17  years  over 
$20,476,500. 

The  so-called  patent  on  acetyl-salicylic  acid  was  obtained  from  our 
Government  by  misrepresentation.  The  product  was  fully  described 
in  Current  Literature  by  Kraut  in  1869.  They  claimed  that  their 
acetyl-salicylic  acid  was  different  from  that  described  by  Kraut  in 
that  their's  did  not  liquefy  until  it  reached  a  much  higher  tempera- 
ture and  that  it  did  not  produce  a  violet  color  when  added  to  a  weak 
solution  of  chloride  of  iron.  Our  Patent  Office  has  since  acknowl- 
edged, when  it  issued  patent  No.  740702  on  the  sodium  salt  of  acetvl- 
salicylic  acid,  that  if  the  medicine  is  made  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  prescription  written  by  Kraut  in  1869  it  would  produce  the 
identical  acetyl-salicylic  acid  fhey  claimed.  As  to  the  definite 
temperature  at  which  the  product  is  converted  to  a  liquid  condition, 
there  is  none.  It  will  completely  liquefy,  with  decomposition,  if 
gradually  heated  to  a  temperature  of  120°  C.,  or  15  less  than 
claimed  in  the  patent. 

If  our  tariff  is  to  be  one  of  protection  to  American  industry  or  one 
of  evenness,  then  these  medicines  should  be  taxed  on  the  basis  of 
their  selling  prices  in  this  country,  and  not  taxed  on  the  basis  of  the 
cost  of  their  production  in  another  country. 

The  postal  laws  of  our  country  are  being  violated  by  the  Journal  of 
the  American  Medical  Association  to  the  material  benefit  of  this 
octopus  corporation  and  some  other  favored  German  corporations 
who  have  combined  in  the  restraint  of  trade.  Under  the  regulations 
governing  the  use  of  the  mails  by  publications  at  second-class  rates, 
our  laws  provide  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  between  manu- 
facturers in  the  use  of  the  advertising  pages.  The  Journal  of  the 
American  Medical  Association  refuses  the  opportunity  of  making 
known  the  truth  about  American-made  competing  chemical  com- 
pounds of  superior  value — on  the  technicality  that  all  products 
advertised  in  the  journal  must  be  first  approved  of  by  its  council  on 
pharmacy  and  chemistry  of  the  American  Medical  Association. 
This  device  is  supposed  to  constitute  this  council  as  a  "referee"  and 
is  supposed  to  bind  those  who  are  intrepid  enough  to  submit  their 
products  to  it  to  abide  by  its  decision  and  forfeit  the  right  to  adver- 
tise in  that  journal.  Do  our  laws  tolerate  such  blatant  deceit? 

Thus  the  patent  medicines  made  by  the  $100,000,000  corporations 
in  Germany,  who  are  in  the  combination  to  restrain  competition  in 
medicines  in  the  United  States,  were  approved  of  en  masse,  over  six 


SCHEDULE   A.  11 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

years  ago,  by  this  so-called  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  of 
the  American  Medical  Association.  The  competing  medicines  that 
possess  superior  values  in  the  amelioration  of  human  suffering  were 
to  be  acted  on  later,  after  due  consideration.  It  was  not  a  question 
of  proprietary  rights  versus  freedom  of  manufacture.  Neither  was  it 
the  laudable  question  of  curative  values  versus  medicinal  uselessness, 
as  stated  by  trie  chairman  of  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry 
of  the  American  Medical  Association  in  a  letter  to  me  that  the  pro- 
prietary products  made  by  the  favored  German  manufacturers — 

Are  recognized  and  will  need  no  investigation  on  the  part  of  the  council.  *  *  * 
If  your  preparations  are  patented,  *  *  *  send  the  number  and  date  of  the  patent. 
The  therapeutic  properties  of  the  preparations  need  not  be  gone  into  except  in  brief. 
The  main  thing  in  this  case,  of  course,  is  to  define  the  chemical  position.  That  being 
done,  the  rest  is  easy. 

There  is  no  class  of  men  so  sensitive  to  ridicule  as  the  medical  pro- 
fession. This  fact  has  made  the  American  people  the  victims  of  the 
German  corporation. 

Were  the  maintenance  of  this  German  monopoly  and  the  discredit- 
ing of  American  competition  merely  a  question  of  merchandise  the 
Government  would  not  stand  for  it.  It  is  far  worse.  Being  a  ques- 
tion of  human  life  the  public  naturally  have  a  right  to  think  that  the 
function  of  this  council  was  in  the  interests  of  the  health  of  the  people. 
It  is  the  cleverest  device  ever  foisted  before  the  American  people  for 
the  patenting  of  control  of  opportunity  in  behalf  of  special  interests 
by  the  manipulation  of  the  confidence  of  guardians  or  the  health  of 
the  Nation.  The  tremendous  prestige  of  the  honorable  positions 
held  by  the  individual  members  of  this  council,  and  the  knowledge 
that  tne  issue  involved  human  lives,  made  it  unthinkable  that  any 
such  class  of  men  would  permit  the  use  of  their  reputations  in  this 
scurvy  attempt  to  discredit  medicines  having  the  power  to  alleviate 
human  sufferings.  Thus,  the  weighty  influence  of  the  high  prestige 
of  Harvey  W.  Wiley,  then  Chief  Chemist  of  the  Bureau  of  Agriculture, 
the  chief  of  the  Drug  Laboratory  of  the  Bureau  of  Agriculture,  along 
with  the  power  of  the  high  positions  in  our  leading  medical  colleges 
held  by  the  other  members  of  that  body,  have  produced  deep-rooted 
prejudices  and  fixed  opinions  of  the  prescribers  of  medicines  and 
established  an  insidious  boycott  of  medicines  capable  of  reducing 
the  period  of  sickness  as  quickly  and  in  many  instances  much  more 
rapidly  than  any  other  medicine  made  anywhere  by  anybody. 

By  the  display  of  the  official  positions  of  the  individuals  compos- 
ing the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  there  is  accomplished 
the  appearance  of  the  indorsement  of  favored  patent  medicines  and 
the  condemnation  of  meritorious  chemical  compounds  of  known 
composition  by  our  Government  and  the  leading  medical  colleges 
(if  our  countiy  that  should  prohibit  the  use  of  their  stationery  for 
such  purposes. 

Six  years  ago  the  Government  bought  some  acetyl-salicyl-phenet- 
idin  on  the  open  market.  It  was  analyzed  and  found  to  be  a  true 
chemical  compound.  The  chief  of  the  drug  laboratory,  Lyman  F. 
Kebler,  the  so-called  referee  (he  stated)  to  whom  the  council  on 
pharmacy  and  chemistry  had  referred  this  chemical  compound  to 
for  a  report  on  it,  told  me  that  he  could  not  report  favorable  upon 
it,  "because  it  passed  through  the  alimentary  canal  without  being 


12  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

absorbed."     He  gave  as  authority  an  article  that  had  been  pub- 
lished hi  Germany. 

In  the  stipulation  contained  hi  the  agreement  sent  me  by  the 
chairman  of  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  all  that  was 
essential  was  that — • 

.  The  main  thing  in  this  case,  of  course,  is  to  define  the  chemical  position.     That' 
being  done,  the  rest  is  easy.     The  therapeutic  properties  of  the  preparations  need 
not  be  gone  into  except  in  brief. 

Under  legislative  law  the  chief  of  the  drug  laboratory  of  the  Bureau 
of  Agriculture  has  to  admit  that  these  competing  synthetics  are 
chemical  compounds  of  known  composition.  Under  the  caption  as 
"referee"  of  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  of  the  American 
Medical  Association  he  avoids  approval  by  sophistry  on  specious 
technicalities. 

After  several  letters  from  me  demanding  evidence  in  substantiation 
of  his  statement  to  me  he  supplied  the  name  and  issue  of  the  German 
publication.  For  this  gentleman  to  be  so  well  posted  in  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world,  especially  in  a  branch  of  science  different  from  his 
vocation  and  that  printed  in  a  foreign  tongue,  caused  me  to  smile 
when  I  thought  of  the  many  other  such  partisan  statements  that  had 
been  conveniently  printed  in  Germany  and  astutely  circulated  in  the 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  chemical  compounds 
which  I  had  created. 

The  article  he  referred  to  was  printed  in  the  Berechte  der  Deutschen 
Gesellschaft,  volume  37,  page  3975,  and  entitled,  "Acetyl-salicyl- 
phenetidin."  See  page  69  of  my  monograph.  The  article  was  pre- 
pared by  two  of  the  leading  chemists  of  Germany  and  one  of  its  great- 
est authorities  on  pharmacological  testing.  It  was  honest  in  what 
\vas  stated,  but  dishonest  in  conveying  misleading  inference  by 
adroitly  omitting  to  state  the  principal  part  of  the  whole  truth.  It 
gave  me  credit  as  being  the  originator  of  the  compound  and  admitted 
that  the  process,  published  by  me,  for  the  manufacture  of  this  syn- 
thetic chemical  compound,  was  correct.  It  admitted  that  the  medi- 
cine does  not  reduce  the  normal  temperature  of  the  body,  and  that  it 
does  not  interfere  with  the  oxygen-carrying  function  of  the  red-blood 
corpuscles — so  vitally  essential  for  life.  But  it  deftly  omitted  to 
tell  the  important  part  of  the  whole  truth  that  where  an  abnormal 
temperature  or  fever  is  present  as  the  result  of  the  germs  of  disease 
that  the  chemical  compound  does  remove  the  excess  temperature 
with  safety.  When  that  quality  of  not  doing  harm  whilst  doing 
good  is  the  valuable  feature  of  the  compound  which  I  added  to  this 
world's  sum  of  knowledge,  and  is  the  one  true  reason  for  its  existence, 
what  does  the  suppression  of  such  important  knowledge  indicate  f 

The  product  that  is  the  nearest  approach  to  this  unequaled  chem- 
ical compound  in  relieving  mankind  of  the  pains  of  neuralgic  condi- 
tions and  the  fevers  caused  by  infectious  diseases,  colds,  etc.,  is  con- 
trolled by  the  favored  (ierman  corporation,  there  being  none  other 
made  in  tliis  country. 

Statistics  state  that  there  are  25, 000  deaths  from  typhoid  fever 
and  100, 000  deaths  from  pneumonia  in  the  United  States  every  year. 
There  is  no  one  medicine  more  efficient  and  potent  in  the  treatment 
of  these  diseases  than  is  ace tyl-salicyl-phenetidin' when  used  hi  ade- 


SCHEDULE   A.  13 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

quato  dosage.     Dr.  Henry  Beates,  for  many  years  president  of  the 
Pennsylvania  State  medical  examining  board,  states: 

In  typhoid  fever,  as  proven  by  cultures  studied  by  competent  observers,  it  rapidly 
diminishes  the  number  of  bacilli  typhosi  in  the  urine  (50  per  cent  in  4  days)  and 
frequently  lessens  the  duration  of  the  disease  because  of  its  antiseptic  quality. 

By  using  the  German  quotation  as  his  authority  and  reason, 
Lyman  F.  Kebler,  in  stating  that  the  compound  is  inactive,  admits 
that  no  medicine  is  safer  to  use  in  the  treatment  of  these  diseases. 
He  has  no  justifiable  reason  for  not  knowing  of  its  efficiency.  He 
would  not  personally  take  an  overdose  of  it  to  prove  his  contention. 
So.  in  playing  the  part  of  being  the  mentor  as  to  just  who  shall  man- 
ufacture medicines  capable  of  saving  human  lives,  this  so-called 
"referee"  may  be  responsible,  in  my  opinion,  for  the  sacrifice  of 
many  times  more  lives  than  went  down  with  the  Titanic. 

Application  for  space  in  the  exhibit  hall  of  the  annual  meetings 
of  the  American  Medical  Association  is  also  denied,  because  the 
products  submitted  had  not  been  acted  upon  by  the  council  on 
pharmacy  and  chemistry. 

Finally,  in  June,  1907,  the  council  on  pharmacy  presented  the 
appearance  of  action  by  refusing  to  approve  of  the  synthetic  medicine, 
bismuth  methylene  disalicylic  acid,  assigning  as  an  object  that  I  had 
obtained  a  patent  on  another  product,  which,  it  stated,  had  been 
described  in  current  literature  in  Germany.  This  was  an  admission 
that  one  of  the  functions  of  this  council  was  the  passing  upon  the 
validity  of  patents. 

To  this  objection  we  answered  that  the  Government  grant  to  us  is 
prima  facie  valid  by  force  of  the  statute,  and  that  we  aid  not  think 
the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  was  a  tribunal  in  substitution 
for  the  courts  to  determine  ex  parte  the  validity  of  the  patents.  If 
such  were  the  case,  then  why  had  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chem- 
istry approved  of  aspirin  or  acetyl-salicylic  acid  that  had  been  fully 
described  in  current  literature  as  far  back  as  1869  ?  The  members  of 
this  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  knew  of  the  nature  of  the 
defect  in  the  claims  in  the  patent  rights  of  foreign-made  product.  It 
also  knew  that  that  product,  outside  of  the  commercial  advantage, ' 
was  in  no  sense  superior  in  medicinal  values  to  the  salts  of  salicylic 
acid,  described  in  the  Pharmacopoeia,  that  were  entirely  free  of  pro- 
prietary rights.  It  also  knew  that  there  were  no  products  described 
by  the  Pharmacopoeia  that  possessed  the  chemical  nature  and  the 
medicinal  qualifications  of  the  American-made  synthetic.  It  also 
knew  that  the  compound  possessed  sufficient  merits  as  to  necessitate 
the  manufacture  of  a  specious  technicality  for  the  appearance  of  a 
defect. 

The  rights  of  the  sick  to  the  use  of  the  meritorious  medicinal  values 
of  the  new  synthetic  compound  were  trampled  upon  by  the  ruse  of 
raising  a  cloud  on  the  validity  of  letters  patent  issued  by  our  Govern- 
ment on  another  different  substance.  It  was  a  device  that  looked  as 
if  they  would  like  to  undermine  the  right  of  honorable  compensation 
to  the  inventor  of  the  acetyl  compound  of  methylene  disalicylic  acid. 
When  I  went  the  Germans  one  better  and  chemically  combined 
formaldehyde  with  acetic  acid  and  salicylic  acid  and  produced  acetyl 
methylene  disalicylic  acid,  I  created  the  product  that  cures  rheu- 


14  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

matism  and  gout  in  less  time  than  by  any  other  agent  known  to  man. 
It  is  far  safer  and  more  efficient  than  the  product  controlled  by  that 
German  corporation,  especially  in  the  presence  of  heart  disease. 
But  in  doing  so  I  have  brought  down  upon  myself  and  my  cause  the 
wrath  of  that  $100,000,000  corporation  and  have  been  deprived  of 
the  vaunted  rights  of  citizenship. 

To  undermine  confidence  in  the  curative  value  of  acetyl  methylene 
disalicylic  acid,  that  far  surpasses  in  curative  quality  the  German- 
made  proprietary,  approved  of  by  the  council  on  pharmacy  and 
chemistry,  the  so-called  " referee"  to  whom  the  council  had  referred 
it  for  investigation  prepared  a  fake  "report"  that  contained  over 
10,000  words  with  the  difficult  collaboration  of  elaborate  tables. 
Months  of  tune  were  consumed  in  its  preparation,  which  involved 
the  " reading"  of  much  of  the  German  literature  and  the  manufac- 
tured evidence,  so  as  to  neatly  place  here  and  there  some  quotation 
to  give  it  the  appearance  of  reliability  with  which  to  impress  the 
readers  as  to  the  care,  thought,  and  accurateness  involved  in  its 
preparation.  This  dishonest  "report"  the  council  on  pharmacy  and 
chemistry  ordered  to  be  printed  in  the  Journal  of  the  American 
Medical  Association. 

This  fake  "report"  bore  the  immaculate  appearance  of  a  dispas- 
sionate research  contribution  "from  the  pharmacological  laboratory 
of  the  Western  Reserve  University"  on  the  value  of  "Formaldehyde 
derivatives:  Their  fate  and  actions  in  the  body,  together  with  obser- 
vations on  some  other  urinary,  intestinal,  and  wound  antiseptics." 

Emanation  from  such  a  source  carried  with  it  the  high  prestige 
of  correctness  of  that  college.  Bearing  the  approval  for  publication 
by  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  of  the  American  Medical 
Association  gave  to  the  fake  "report"  the  atmosphere  of  infallibility. 
Having  the  approval  of  the  Chief  Chemist  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricul- 
ture and  the  chief  of  the  drug  laboratory  caused  the  medical  profes- 
sion to  accept  it  as  authentic.  The  function  of  these  apostles  of  virtue 
was  supposed  to  be  guarding  the  welfare  of  the  sick  and  their  time 
was  supposed  to  be  donated  to  the  service  for  the  uplifting  of  the 
cause  of  pure  food  and  clean  thought. 

All  of  the  foreign-made  formaldehyde  derivatives  described  in 
that  fake  "report"  had  already  been  approved  of  by  that  council 
on  pharmacy  and  chemistry.  All  of  the  American-made  formaldehyde 
derivatives  mentioned  in  that  "fake"  report  were  first  thought  out  by 
me  and  the  process  of  manufacture  published  to  the  world.  This 
fake  "report"  was  the  highest  effectual  advertisement  of  the  foreign- 
made  proprietary  medicine  brought  out  by  that  favored  German 
corporation  to  compete  with  the  chemical  which  I  had  created,  and 
at  the  same  time  a  severe  denunciation  of  our  product — which  is  so 
efficient  that  false  witness  must  be  manufactured  to  discredit  it. 

The  total  amount  of  the  medicines  used  for  testing  for  the  libera- 
tion of  formaldehyde  in  watery  solution  would  bulk  about  as  much 
as  a  No.  S  grain  of  shot.  The  amount  administered  to  observe  their 
fate  and  actions  in  the  human  body,  together  with  observations  on 
their  antiseptic  influence  on  the  urine,  was  less  than  one  single  dose, 
and  that  used  but  twice  on  two  separate  days.  The  American 
synthetic,  bismuth  oxyiodido  methylene  digallate,  that  is  used  by 
honest  men  in  those  diseased  and  accidental  conditions  exhibited 


SCHEDULE   A.  15 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

as  diarrhoeas,  ulcerations,  contused  wounds,  burns,  etc.,  at  reputable 
medical  colleges  was  measured  by  these  male  creatures  on  the  basis 
of  a  urinary  antiseptic.  The  synthetic  acetyl-methylene  disalicylic 
acid,  that  is  so  superior  in  the  curing  of  gout  and  rheumatism  to 
those  approved  of  proprietaries  made  in  Germany,  was  measured 
on  the  basis  of  a  wound  powder.  The  synthetic  benzoyl  methylene 
diguaiacol  was  denounced  and  rejected  with  the  ruse  "that  it  was 
most  probably  not  absorbed"  Into  the  human  organism,  although 
no  attempt  was  made  to  find  out  by  administering  it. 

The  author  of  the  "report"  afterwards  stated  that  he  did  not 
consider  it  incumbent  on  him  to  conduct  lengthy  researches  to  sup- 
ply information  which  should  have  been  furnished  by  the  manu- 
facturer, and  that  he  therefore  contented  himself  with  stating  that 
the  latter  had  not  made  good  his  claims.  But  he  failed  to  state 
where  and  wiien  he  had  ever  before  stated  it.  Then  why  the  exist- 
ence of  his  "report"?  The  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation and  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  had  stated, 
and  afterwards  repeated  the  misstatement  in  the  face  of  this  admis- 
sion that  he  had  not,  that  he  had  proven  it. 

On  the  subject  of  conducting  "researches"  and  praising  foreign- 
made  patent  medicines  upon  the  "use"  of  a  fraction  of  one  solitary 
dose,  and  that  use  but  three  times  on  separated  days,  in  whose  behalf 
was  he  conducting  them  ?  He  was  supposed  to  be  serving  the  cause 
of  afflicted  humanity.  In  whose  behalf  was  the  "research"  con- 
ducted in  praise  of  another  foreign-made  proprietary  medicine  and 
published  on  the  previous  month  in  the  Journal  of  the  American 
Medical  Association  ?  Was  he  working  in  behalf  of  the  sick  or  working 
the  sick  ? 

The  author  of  that  fake  "report"  also  confessed,  on  the  subject  of 
the  liberation  of  formaldehyde  in  passing  through  the  human  organ- 
ism, that  none  of  his  evidence  that  had  been  published  as  proven  hi 
the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  and  approved  of  as 
proven  facts  by  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  was  true,  as 
shown  by  his  admissions— 

I  took  care  to  avoid  any  statement  that  the  decomposition  was  disproved.  *  *  * 
None  of  this  amounts  to  a  final  proof  that  these  products  are  not  decomposed  in  the 
body;  and  I  have  with  care  avoided  any  statement  to  this  effect. 

The  fake  "report"  purported  to  be  one  founded  on  "Formaldehyde 
derivatives:  Their  fate  and  actions  in  the  body."  It  contained  no 
reference  to  personality,  yet  the  editor  of  the  Journal  of  the  American 
Medical  Association  and  the  chairman  of  the  council  on  pharmacy 
and  chemistry  afterwards  confessed  that — 

Knowing  what  I  know,  I  think  Dr.  Summers  has  been  treated  much  more  leniently 
than  he  ought  to  have  been  treated,  but  I  do  not  care  to  give  the  reasons  to  you  now. 

According  to  this  evidence  from  the  general  manager  of  the  Ameri- 
can Medical  Association  the  discrediting  of  nonsecret  chemical  com- 
pounds possessing  unsurpassed  curative  properties  in  the  saving  of 
human  lives,  was  upon  me  question  of  personality  and  not  because 
of  any  therapeutic  inefficiency  of  those  medicines.  Then  why  the 
Sollmann  "report"  and  the  misuse  of  such  valuable  space  in  the 
leading  medical  journal  of  the  world? 


16  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

In  its  follow-up  plan  of  attempting  to  destroy  our  competition  by 
its  assumed  rights  to  designate  who  shall  manufacture  medicines  and 
who  shall  invent  chemical  compounds  for  the  relief  of  human  sick- 
ness, the  editor  of  the  Journal  and  the  general  manager  of  the 
American  Medical  Association,  and  the  council  on  pharmacy  and 
chemistry  caused  to  be  published  in  the  journal  of  the  association, 
on  May  8,  1909,  a  general  assault  against  acetyl-methylene-disalicylic 
acid,  which  is  so  much  more  efficient  than  the  approved  of  German 
made  antigout  and  antirheumatic  remedies,  against  the  manufac- 
tures of  it,  and  fiercely  abused  those  who  had  dared  to  defend  the 
rights  of  the  sick  by  testifying  to  the  facts. 

Being  unable  to  refute  the  irrefragible  evidence  contained  in  these 
chemical  compounds,  and  the  evidence  submitted  by  those  who  do- 
nated their  talents  and  time  without  price  in  defense  of  the  rights 
of  the  sick,  the  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry  resorted  to  the 
device  of  calling  names  and  intimating  lack  of  integrity  and  of  ability 
in  men  of  achievement  who  stand  far  above  any  member  of  that 
council.  Many  thousands  of  words  were  used  ana  so  arranged  as  to 
skillfully  cloud  the  questions  at  issue,  with  appeals  to  the  passions 
of  the  medical  profession.  It  was  a  masterpiece  of  work  of  the  kind 
calculated  to  confuse  and  entangle,  with  the  omission  of  the  crucial 
part  of  the  facts.  Venomous  mendacity  was  promoted  with  the 
appearance  of  truth  with  a  cunning  confusion. 

The  character  of  responsibility  of  this  council  on  pharmacy  and 
chemistry  is  such  as  appears  to  enable  it  to  originate  and  circulate 
wicked  untruths  and  committing  fraudulent  acts  that  were  personally 
irresponsibly  indorsed  collectively  but  not  personally  responsible  by 
being  indorsed  individually.  The  invested  capital  of  American  cor- 
porations should  be  just  as  much  protected  from  defamation  calcu- 
lated to  undermine  confidence  as  is  now  possessed  by  our  national 
banks.  The  noncombative  sick  of  our  country  are  entitled  to  the 
use  of  what  will  best  restore  their  health.  Collusive  fraud,  such  as 
practiced  by  this  council  on  pharmacy  and  chemistry,  should  be 
punished  by  personal  imprisonment. 

Believing  that  the  then  chief  chemist  of  our  Government  and  the 
chief  of  the  drug  laboratory  would  be  willing  to  die  the  death  of 
martyrs  in  behalf  of  the  innocent  public  in  the  arena  of  Christian 
courage,  I  wrote  to  them  and  asked  them  to  assume  individual 
responsibility  for  what  bore  the  appearance  of  their  approval,  as  to 
the  truthfulness  of  the  statements  contained  in  these  "reports."  But 
their  courage  was  not  sufficient  to  apologize  or  to  assume  the  conse- 
quences of  a  suit  for  perjury,  if  they  would  swear  to  what  they  loaned 
the  high  prestige  of  their  official  positions  to  accomplish. 

In  1901  the  American  representatives  of  that  audacious  foreign 
corporation  attempted  to  obtain  a  restraining  injunction  against  the 
manufacture  of  a  synthetic  that  we  were  selling  in  competition  with 
their  phenacetin.  This  was  at  a  period  of  time  when  they  were 
enjoying  their  heyday  from  the  profits  from  this  drug.  More  than 
Hi, 000  ounce^  were  most  probably  sold  every  day  at  the  price  of  $1 
pei-  ounce  for  what  did  not  cost  them  more  than  5  cents.  The  duty 
they  paid  the  Government  was  probably  less  than  2  cents.  All  other 
peoples  could  buy  the  same  product  for  about  10  cents.  An  injunc- 


SCHEDULE   A.  17 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

tion  against  a  product  which  they  claimed  to  be  identical  that  sold 
for  25  per  cent  less  than  they  charged  would  have  been  of  value  to 
them.  The  United  States  district  court  refused  them  an  injunction. 
Then  began  a  virile  campaign  of  defamation  calculated  to  destroy 
confidence  in  our  products,  that  was  printed  and  mailed  in  Germany 
and  beyond  the  reach  of  our  laws. 

In  1904  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  became 
a  party  to  publications  reflecting  upon  our  products — not  on  the 
curative  quality,  but  on  the  question  that  the  readers  could  not  be 
competent  to  judge.  As  the  editor  and  general  manager  of  the 
American  Medical  Association  wrote  me  on  the  subject: 

It  is  one  of  those  questions  that  can  not  be  settled  by  ordinary  correspondence, 
since  it  has  underlying  it  principles  about  which  the  average  physician  knows  but 
little. 

The  advertising  manager  and  the  left-hand  bower  of  the  general 
manager  wrote: 

Can  you  tell  me,  confidentially,  why  such  an  article  should  be  presented?  I  am 
not  quite  sure,  but  I  think  the  article  was  read  in  the  therapeutic  section  of  the  A. 
M.  A.,  a  program  of  which  meeting  I  am  sending  you  under  separate  cover.  Does 
any  one  firm  in  New  York  make  preparations  similar  to  yours?  I  know  about  thermol, 
but  whose  toes  are  you  tramping  on  with  ur-a-sol  and  iodomuth?  Is  it  the  same 
party?  This  is  as  much  as  I  can  say  in  a  letter. 

The  owners  of  the  foreign-made  patented  chemicals  possessed 
ample  funds  to  protect  their  rights.  When  they  were  the  exclusive 
beneficiaries  of  the  libelous  attack  against  their  American  competing 
products,  why  did  not  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion refer  the  question  to  the  courts,  especially  as  it  was  beyond  the 
comprehension  of  the  "average  physician"  ? 

This  assault  was  followed  up  by  the  sending  out  of  another  medical 
publication  containing  reference  to  the  publication  in  the  Journal 
of  the  American  Medical  Association,  which  was  sent  to  every  phy- 
sician and  druggist  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  at  an.  expense 
of  many  thousands  of  dollars. 

In  1907  a  combination  in  restraint  of  trade  of  German  chemical 
manufacturers  prevented  our  purchase  of  supplies  from  which  to 
construct  the  synthetic  medicine  which  was  our  largest  seller. 

The  general  manager  of  the  American  Medical  Association  admitted 
knowledge  of  this  fact  and  wrote: 

From  what  I  have  heard  in  the  past  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  German  firms  are 
working  with  other  firms  to  control  certain  products — not  yours  particularly,  but  many 
others. 

In  1907  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  published 
a  scathing  defamatory  attack  against  me  personally  and  the  company 
of  which  I  was  president.  Being  unable  to  bring  the  slightest  evi- 
dence of  any  wrongdoing  of  ours  to  be  used  against  us,  the  editor  of 
the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  wrote  himself  down 
as  skilled  in  all  the  arts  appropriate  to  forgers  and  convicted  himself 
of  being  guilty  of  a  studied  perversion  of  the  truth  and  a  desire  to  de- 
prive the  sick  of  meritorious  medicines.  By  his  so  doing  and  with 
the  presentation  of  photographs  of  his  misstatements  and  of  my 
chemical-therapeutic  contributions  which  he  described  as  a  clinical 

78959°— VOL  1—13 2 


18  TAEIFF    HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

contribution,  there  is  revealed  a  more  severe  reflection  of  his  inten- 
tional incorrectness  than  any  that  I  could  make.  This  manufacture 
of  false  evidence  to  be  used  against  an  innocent  person  in  holding  him 
up  to  the  medical  profession  of  the  United  States  as  an  object  of 
ignominy  and  contempt  and  to  discredit  the  manufacturers  or  medi- 
cines possessing  unsurpassed  curative  virtues  and  of  known  compo- 
sition may  be  right  in  the  minds  of  those  $100,000,000  corporations 
of  Germany  but  not  hi  the  interest  of  the  innocent  sick. 

Detailed  replies  to  those  seeking  the  destruction  of  competition  in 
medicines  have  been  prepared  in  pamphlet  form,  much  of  which  is 
contained  in  my  monograph  on  How  Special  Interests  Patented  Con- 
trol of  Opportunity  with  the  Delivery  of  Noble  Sentiments  for  the 
Welfare  of  the  Afflicted. 

STATEMENT  OF  FRANCIS  E.  HAMILTON,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING 
THE  HEYDEN  CHEMICAL  WORKS,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  now  hear  Mr.  F.  E.  Hamilton. 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  wish  to  be  heard 
through  my  client,  the  president  of  the  Heyden  Chemical  Works,  who 
knows  a  great  deal  more  about  the  subject  than  I  do;  and  I  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  I  am  a  lawyer  making 
such  an  admission.  The  subject  to  be  discussed  is  salicylic  acid, 
which  I  believe,  if  not  at  the  present  moment  of  personal  interest  to 
every  member  of  the  committee,  may  at  some  time  become  of  some 
interest  to  every  member,  because  it  is  the  most  universal  remedy 
for  rheumatism  I  know  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  now  hear  Mr.  George  Simon. 

STATEMENT    OF  GEORGE    SIMON,  OF    GARFIELD,  N.  J.,  PRESI- 
DENT OF  THE  HEYDEN  CHEMICAL  WORKS,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  SIMON.  Gentlemen,  this  bill  which  passed  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentative last  summer  affects  our  company  in  about  50  different 
preparations.  Some  of  our  raw  materials  have  been  made  subject 
to  a  duty,  and  all  of  our  finished  products  have  been  reduced  in  duty. 
I  will  confine  myself  only  to  salicylic  acid,  not  because  it  is  in  quan- 
tity or  in  value  the  most  important  of  our  products,  but  because  it 
is  a  basic  product  which  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  fine  chemicals 
in  various  ways,  and  it  is  very  important  that  the  source  of  supply 
of  this  product  should  not  become  wholly  foreign. 

In  a  brief  which  I  have  already  submitted,  and  which  I  will  not 
read  again  unless  I  am  asked  to,  I  have  tried  to  prove  that  a  duty  of 
2}  cents  per  pound,  as  this  bill  proposes,  would  put  the  American 
manufacturers  and  the  American  consumers  entirely  at  the  mercy 
of  a  foreign  trust  called  the  ''Salicylic  Acid  Syndicate."  The  Ding- 
ley  tariff  put  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid;  the  Payne- 
Aldrich  bill  reduced  this  to  5  cents  per  pound.  Now,  a  further  cut 
of  24-  cents  per  pound  would  be  disastrous.  The  amount  of  money 
which  we  have  invested  in  our  factory  alone,  in  the  manufacture  of 
salicylic  acid,  in  buildings  and  machinery,  amounts  to  a  little  more 
than  $190,000.  Our  pay  roll  is  $28,000  per  year.  Those  are  com- 
paratively small  figures,  but  the  total  quantity  of  salicylic  acid  which 


SCHEDULE   A.  19 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

would  be  imported  here  if  the  manufacture  in  the  United  States 
should  entirely  cease  would  not  exceed,  probably,  500,000  pounds, 
and  with  a  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound  this  would  make  a  revenue  of 
$12,500  per  year.  The  question  may  be  asked,  Is  it  worth  while  to 
destroy  this  industry,  which,  as  I  have  stated,  is  important,  and  to 
deprive  a  considerable  number  of  workmen  who  are  employed  in  the 
manufacture  of  this  product  of  their  living,  for  the  sake  of  getting  a 
revenue  of  $12,500? 

But  I  understand  that  these  are  minor  questions,  that  this  is  going 
to  be  a  tariff  for  the  consumer.  What  would  be  the  result  as  far  as 
the  consumer  is  concerned?  We  would  have  to  stop  making  the 
salicylic  acid  here,  and  then  the  consumer  would  be  dictated  to  as  to 
his  price  by  the  European  syndicate.  He  would  be  forced  to  buy 
from  a  combination  which,  under  the  laws  of  our  country,  would 
be  illegal.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  has  been  intended  to  bring  about 
such  conditions,  and  in  trying  to  find  the  reason  for  it,  I  notice  that 
there  are  certain  conditions  which  must  have  misled  the  framers  of 
this  bill.  The  tariff  rates  in  Schedule  A  have  been  reduced  in  this 
bill  from  an  average  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  16  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  On  salicylic  acid  the  duty  has  already  been  19  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  but  the  new  bill,  No.  2182,  reduces  it  to  2£  per  cent,  or  an 
equivalent  of  9£  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  are  mistaken  about  that. 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  will  explain  that  in  one  minute.  That  is  just  the 
point  I  want  to  make  clear  to  you. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  paragraph  is  that  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Salicylic  acid,  Schedule  A,  paragraph  1,  I  think. 

The  value  given  in  the  import  list  which  you  have  before  you  does 
not  represent  the  correct  European  value  for  pure  salicylic  acid,  and 
consequently  the  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  does  not  equal  the  ad 
valorem  rate  of  31  per  cent,  as  you  have  it  in  these  lists,  but  equals 
only  19  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  state  there,  of  course  you  understand  that 
this  equivalent  ad  valorem  rate  of  31.04  per  cent  is  the  rate  that  is 
estimated  by  the  Treasury  Department;  those  are  not  our  figures. 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes.  We  wish  to  state  that  the  salicylic  acid  which 
has  been  imported,  and  on  which  this  figure  has  been  calculated,  has 
not  been  commercial  salicylic  acid;  it  has  been  crude  salicylic  acid, 
a  product  from  which  the  commercial  salicylic  acid  is  manufactured, 
and  the  value  of  this  crude  salicylic  acid  is  away  below  the  value  of 
the  regular  salicylic  acid.  Of  course,  we  do  not  manufacture  it 
from  crude  salicylic  acid.  Certain  quantities  of  that  crude  product 
have  been  imported  at  a  very  low  value,  but  the  actual  value  all  over 
Europe,  in  every  country  except  the  United  States,  is  26  cents  a 
pound.  An3'body  who  sells  in  Europe  at  1  cent  below  this  figure  will 
be  subject  to  a  heavy  fine. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Because  It  is  a  syndicate.  It  is  a  salicylic  syndicate, 
or  trust. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  fact,  all  these  concerns  in  Europe,  or  across  the 
waters,  which  come  in  competition  on  this  chemical  schedule  are  in 
syndicates  or  monopolies,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  know  of  this  one. 


20  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PAKAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know  all  I  have  heard  of  to-day  have  been  in 
syndicates. 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  do  not  know  about  the  others,  but  I  know  about  this. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  do  you  suppose  is  the  American  consumption 
of  salicylic  acid  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  All  that  could  be  sold  here  would  probably  not  exceed 
500,000  pounds.  I  have  shown  that  in  detail  in  the  brief  which  I 
have  submitted. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  about  30,000  pounds  are  the  imports  now? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  believe  they  have  been  considerably  more  in  1912, 
because  the  trust  over  there  has  made  great  efforts  to  invade  our 
market.  I  will  read  a  few  words  from  our  brief,  which  will  be  of  inter- 
est in  connection  with  it: 

Salicylic  acid  is  manufactured  on  a  large  scale  in  the  United  States  since  about 
1893  to  1895.  Prior  to  that  time  practically  all  salicylic  acid  consumed  here  was  sup- 
plied by  the  German  manufacturers,  who  were  then,  the  same  as  they  are  to-day, 
combined  to  control  the  prices  all  over  the  world.  The  price  was  $1.25  per  pound 
when  the  first  salicylic-acid  factory  was  erected  in  St.  Louis.  The  American  manu- 
facturers cut  the  price  far  below  the  European  prices  and  forced  the  agents  of  the 
trust  to  reduce  their  prices  in  the  United  States  to  56  cents  per  pound  for  quantities  of 
more  than  100  pounds. 

Under  the  severe  competition  which  followed,  the  price  of  salicylic  acid  in  this 
country  went  gradually  down  to  about  30  cents  per  pound  and  less  in  wholesale 
quantities.  About  10  years  ago  there  existed  five  manufacturers  of  salicylic  acid  in  the 
United  States,  three  of  which  have  since  failed. 

The  American  manufacturers  are  to-day  the  only  opponents  of  the  European  trust. 
All  other  countries  in  the  world  are  controlled  by  this  trust  and  uniform  prices  are 
fixed  in  every  country,  except  the  United  States,  which  is  left  open  as  a  dumping 
ground  for  any  surplus  that  may  exist.  The  prices  at  which  the  European  manu- 
facturers ship  their  salicylic  acid  into  this  country  are  much  lower  than  those  at  which 
they  sell  in  their  home  markets. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  did  foreign  countries  dump  on  us  of  the 
salicylic  acid  last  year  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  estimated  it  at  50,000  pounds. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Less  than  $6,000  worth,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  $6,000  worth  going  to  destroy  you  folks? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes;  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  This  was  a  5  cents  per 
pound  duty.  I  did  not  base  my  remarks  on  the  present  duty;  I 
based  them  on  the  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound,  which  will  be  in 
effect  under  this,  and  I  have  submitted  here  a  statement  to  you, 
a  calculation,  showing  why  we  will  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  Europeans 
if  this  duty  is  reduced,  because  our  cost  of  manufacture  is  2£  cents 
per  pound  more  than  in  Germany. 

Mr.  KITCIIIN.  In  1909,  when  the  tariff  was  up  for  discussion,  you 
salicylic  acid  gentlemen  appeared  here,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Xo;  we  did  not. 

Mr.  KITCIIIN.  Did  you  not  protest  against  a  reduction  of  50  per 
cent,  from  10  cents  a  pound  down  to  5  ? 

Air.  SIMON.  In  1 909  we  did  not  appear  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  Dingley  Act  was  10  cents  a  pound,  and  the 
Payne  Act  reduced  it  to  5  cents. 

Mr.  SIMON.  The  manufacturers  who  protested  at  that  time,  when 
the  Dingl;\v  Act  was  made,  have  gone  out  of  business.  We  have 
manufactured  since  1900. 


SCHEDULE  A.  21 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  say,  in  1909,  when  it  was  reduced  from  10  to  5  cents 
a  pound,  did  you  people  not  think  it  would  ruin  you  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  did  not  appear  here  then. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  did  not  find  out  when  they  reduced  it  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Oh,  yes,  we  found  it  out. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  did  not  hurt  you,  did  it? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  do  not  say  that  a  duty  of  5  cents  will  hurt  us.  The 
duty  of  5  cents  is  just  sufficient  to  equal  the  difference,  as  I  have 
tried  to  figure  out  here. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  of  the  product  of  the  salicylic  acid  for 
1912  was  manufactured;  what  was  the  total  amount  of  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  About  $150,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  this  little  six  thousand  that  came  in  did  not 
bother  you  much,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  It  did  not  bother  us,  because  it  was  not  so  much;  but 
it  will  be  a  great  deal  more  under  the  new  bill. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  A  reduction  from  10  cents  to  5  cents,  in  1909,  did  not 
seem  to  hurt  you  gentlemen,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  It  did  not.  Our  price  was  already  very  low.  The 
competition  in  this  country  prevented  us  from  adding  the  duty  of  10 
cents  to  our  price. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  were  selling  our  consumers  here  at  a  low  price, 
because  you  got  competition  among  American  producers  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Our  consumers  were  getting  it  about-  as  cheaply  as 
any  other  consumers  in  the  world,  were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  They  were. 

Mr.  HARBISON.  What  is  the  price  of  salicylic  acid  in  this  country? 

Mr.  SIMON.  There  are  different  qualities.  There  is  the  pharma- 
ceutical, which  is  worth  about  30  cents  a  pound.  On  the  average,  we 
do  not  realize  more  than  25  cents  per  pound. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all  you  desire  to  say  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  Just  one  moment.  Salicylic  acid  is  made  from  oil  of 
wintergreen  as  well  as  from  coal-tar  products  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  last  chemical  bill  cut  the  duty 
on  salicylic  acid  in  two  and  puts  a  duty  of  10  to  20  per  cent  on  the 
raw  material. 

Mr.  SIMON.  Up  to  the  present  time  carbolic  acid  has  been  the 
chief  raw  material  for  salicylic  acid,  but  the  price  has  become  so 
high  it  is  not  to-day  considered  the  raw  material.  Our  competitors 
in  Germany  have  in  recent  years  installed  plants  to  produce  salicylic 
acid  by  synthetic  process,  starting  from  benzol,  and  this  is  to-day  to 
be  considered  the  most  important  raw  material. 

The  natural  carbolic  acid  has  up  to  last  year  been  used  in  our 
factory  as  the  chief  raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of  salicylic 
acid.  The  price  of  this  product,  however,  has  become  so  high  that 
the  German  salicylic  acid  manufacturers  have  installed  large  plants 
to  make  their  carbolic  acid  synthetically  from  benzol.  The  product 
which  they  obtain  by  this  process  is  not  only  considerably  cheaper 
than  the  natural  carbolic  acid  at  its  present  price,  but  also  consid- 
erably purer.  We  obtain  from  5  to  6  per  cent  higher  yields  by 


22  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

employing  the  carbolic  acid  derived  from  benzol,  anti  are  therefore 
now  buying  this  product  from  our  competitors  in  Germany,  to  whom 
we  have  to  pay  a  profit  of  at  least  15  to  20  per  cent. 

We  have  worked  out  a  process  which  will  enable  us  within  a  short 
time  to  start  from  benzol  in  our  manufacture  of  salicylic  acid,  if  the 
rate  of  duty  of  this  product  will  enable  us  to  continue  to  make  it 
here  on  a  competitive  basis. 

Benzol  is  a  product  of  the  United  States.  We  do  not  object  to  a 
duty  of  5  per  cent  on  this  product,  if  it  is  deemed  wise  to  impose  it, 
but  we  respectfully  request  that  this  duty  be  also  considered  in 
fixing  the  duty  on  salicylic  acid,  which  is  a  so-called  fine  chemical, 
requiring  a  very  large  amount  of  labor.  The  other  raw  materials,  of 
which  salicylic  acid  is  made  are  also  subject  to  duty  or  produced 
here  under  conditions  which  make  the  price  considerably  higher  than 
in  Europe. 

To  make  100  pounds  salicylic  acid  we  require:  75  pounds  syn- 
thetic carbolic  acid  made  from  benzol  (proposed  ad  valorem  duty 
5  per  cent) ;  40  pounds  caustic  soda  (proposed  duty,  J  cent  per  pound 
equals  10  per  cent  ad  valorem);  50  pounds  carbonic  acid  (proposed 
ad  valorem  duty  15  per  cent);  75  pounds  sulphuric  acid,  and  2 
pounds  muriatic  acid  (free,  but  price  here  50  per  cent  higher  than 
in  Germany). 

I  do  not  wish  to  appear  as  opposing  the  duties  on  these  materials, 
if  it  is  deemed  wise  to  have  them  for  the  sake  of  revenue  or  for  other 
reasons,  but  I  respectfully  submit  that,  in  view  of  the  resulting 
higher  cost  of  our  raw  materials  for  salicylic  acid  and  the  higher 
cost  of  labor  and  machinery,  with  resulting  higher  cost  of  tear  and 
wear,  a  duty  of  1\  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid  is  inadequate. 

This  rate  of  2^  cents  per  pound  as  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182  corre- 
sponds to  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  9^  per  cent,  figured  on  the  lowest 
selling  price  for  pure  salicylic  acid  anywhere  in  Europe,  which  is 
26  cents  per  pound.  The  present  duty  on  salicylic  acid  is  5  cents 
per  pound,  or  equal  to  19  per  cent,  which,  as  I  have  shown  in  the 
statement  printed,  is  just  sufficient  to  put  the  American  manufac- 
turers of  salicylic  acid  on  a  competitive  basis  with  their  European 
opponents. 

Mr.  HILL.  Taking  the  coal-tar  products  by  and  large,  and  adding 
from  10  to  20  per  cent  duty  on  them,  and  cutting  your  products,  as 
au  example,  can  you  make  salicylic  acid  at  a  reduction  of  duty  of  50 
per  cent  and  an  addition  of  duty  of  20  per  cent  on  your  raw  material 
without  cutting  your  labor  cost  ? 

Mr.  SIMOX.  No;  wo  would  not  cut  our  labor  cost;  I  think  we  would 
have  to  stop. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  would  cut  it,  would  it  not?  It  would  cut  it  out 
entirely  ? 

Mr.  SIMOX.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  you  say  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  make  salicylic 
acid  under  this  schedule  as  proposed  in  the  chemical  bill  passed  at 
the  last  session  of  Congress  ? 

Mr.  SIMOX.  I  say  it  just  depends  on  the  price  at  which  the  Euro- 
peans ship  it  over  here. 

.Mr.  HILL.  CouM  you  have  made  it  during  the  last  year  under  this 
schedule,  taking  the  prices  as  the}'  are  now? 


SCHEDULE   A.  23 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  doubt  it  very  much.  Conditions  were  very  unfavor- 
able during  the  past  year  for  us. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  know  whether  you  could  make  it  or  not,  do  you 
not? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  do  not  think  we  could;  not  to  any  advantage. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  could  not  do  it  without  a  large  reduction  in  the 
wages  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  No ;  we  could  not  do  it  at  all. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Just  for  the  sake  of  record,  the  figures  which  Mr. 
Hill  referred  to  as  20  per  cent  in  our  bill  are  5  per  cent  ad  valorem  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Five  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  2£  cents  per 
pound  for  salicylic  acid  is  a  little  more  than  13  per  cent? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Nine  and  a  hah*. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  According  to  your  own  statement  of  the  value  of 
the  foreign  products;  but  according  to  the  Treasury  returns,  upon 
which  we  must  base  our  figures,  it  equals  13£  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  SIMON.  If  you  want  to  be  just,  I  think  you  must  base  your 
figures  on  the  facts. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  said  that  the  foreign  salicylic  acid  sells  for  26 
cents  per  pound. 

Mr.  SIMON.  It  does. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  sells  here  for  25  cents  a  pound.  Why  do  you 
need  to  fear  competition  under  free  trade,  then  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Because  they  are  selling  it  here  at  a  much  lower  rate 
than  they  are  selling  it  over  there.  They  are  considering  the  Ameri- 
can market  as  a  country  where  they  ship  their  surplus.  We  are 
obliged  to  get  the  trade  here,  because  we  have  to  run  our  factory  day 
and  night,  continually — it  is  never  stopped ;  and  we  can  not  reduce  it. 
We  must  either  have  the  output  which  we  have  or  we  will  be  much 
worse  off  than  we  are.  We  would  rather  cut  the  price  down  than  let 
considerable  quantities  of  the  foreign  product  come  in  here,  because 
then  we  can  not  continue  to  manufacture  it  to  any  advantage. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  cold,  mathematical  fact,  a  reduction  of  the  duty 
from  5  to  1\  cents  is  a  reduction  of  50  per  cent  in  the  duty,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes;  it  has  been  cut  50  per  cent  already,  and  now  it 
is  proposed  to  cut  it  another  50  per  cent. 

I  would  like  very  much  to  submit  herewith  a  statement  showing 
the  exact  difference  in  price  for  making  salicylic  acid  here  and  abroad, 
to  show  that  5.  cents  per  pound  is  just  equal  to  the  difference  in  cost, 
and  that  1\  cents  is  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  of  this  salicylic  acid  do  you  export? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Insignificant  quantities,  very  small  quantities,  which 
we  occasionally  ship  to  Canada,  because  it  is  so  near. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  we  really  not  export  more  than  we  import  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Salicylic  acid? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIMON.  We  import  hardly  any — very  little. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know  we  imported  very  little;  but  did  we  not 
export  more  than  we  imported '? 

Mr.  SIMON.  The  quantities  do  not  cut  any  figure  either  way. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know;  but  I  ask  you  if  we  do  not  export  more  than 
we  import  ? 


24  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  have  not  the  figures;  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  we  exported  most  to  Canada,  did  we  not  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  Yes;  because  that  is  near  to  our  country,  and  they  are 
sometimes  short  hi  salicylic  acid,  and  buy  it  from  here  because  they 
can  get  it  hi  a  short  time. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  country  can  compete  with  us  hi  salicylic  acid  ? 

Mr.  SIMON.  France  and  Germany. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  England  does  not  compete  with  us  1 

Mr.  SIMON.  England  does  not  make  it. 

Mr.  HULL.  How  many  employees  are  there  engaged  hi  the  manu- 
facture of  salicylic  acid? 

Mr.  SIMON.  I  can  only  speak  for  our  factory.  We  have  40  engi- 
neers and  workmen.  It  is  not  a  large  industry.  As  I  stated  at  the 
beginning,  the  whole  duty  on  imported  salicylic  acid  will  be  $12,500. 

The  folio  whig  papers  were  submitted  by  Mr.  Simon : 

Under  the  Dingley  tariff  the  duty  on  salicylic  acid  was  10  cents  per  pound.  The 
Payne-Aldrich  tariff  reduced  it  to  5  cents  per  pound.  A  further  cut  to  2J  cents,  as 
the  House  bill  20182  provides  for,  would  be  disastrous  to  the  industry  in  our  country. 

In  our  factory  at  Garfield,  N.  J.,  we  have  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  salicylic 
acid  more  than  $190,000  for  buildings  and  machinery.  Our  pay  roll  for  this  product 
amounts  to  $28,000  per  year. 

The  total  amount  of  salicylic  acid  which  is  sold  per  year  in  this  country  is  hardly 
more  than  500,000  pounds.  If  all  of  this  was  imported,  the  duty  at  the  rate  of  2£ 
cents  per  pound  would  be  $12,500  per  year. 

It  would  seem  that  a  revenue  of  $12,500  is  no  adequate  equivalent  for  the  possible 
destruction  of  the  values  invested  in  the  product  and  the  means  from  which  a  large 
number  of  people  employed  in  this  business  obtain  their  living.  But  what  would 
be  the  effect  upon  the  consumer?  The  European  trust,  after  destroying  the  Ameri- 
can industry,  would  have  absolute  control  of  this  market,  the  same  as  it  has  control 
of  all  other  markets  in  the  world,  and  the  natural  result  would  be  that  the  consumer 
would  be  forced  to  pay  to  a  combination  that  would  be  illegal  in  this  country  the 
prices  which  it  would  dictate. 

The  tariff  rates  of  Schedule  A  have  been  reduced  on  an  average  from  25  per  cent 
ad  valorem  under  the  present  tariff  to  about  16  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  bill  20182 
which  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  last  summer.  On  salicylic  acid,  however, 
the  duty  is  now  only  equivalent  to  19  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  the  bill  20182  reduced 
it  to  an  equivalent  of  9^  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

This  radical  and,  in  our  opinion,  unintended  reduction  can  be  explained  by  an 
erroneous  impression  about  values  which  the  framers  of  this  bill  may  have  obtained 
from  the  import  lists.  The  values  given  in  these  lists  do  not  represent  the  correct 
European  prices  of  pure  salicylic  acid,  and  consequently  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound 
does  not  equal  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  31  per  cent,  as  it  has  been  figured  out  on  the  lists 
published  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

The  lowest  price  at  which  pure  salicylic  acid,  answering  the  requirement  of  the 
U.  S.  P.,  is  sold  anywhere  in  Europe  is  26  cents  per  pound  in  large  wholesale  quanti- 
ties. There  has  been  imported  into  this  country  a  crude  salicylic  acid  at  a  much 
lower  price,  but  this  is  not  the  article  generally  known  as  salicylic  acid,  and  in  fact  no 
commercial  product  at  all.  Sample  Xo.  1,  which  I  submit,  is  salicylic  acid  and 
Sample  No.  2  is  the  crude  stuff,  on  the  price  of  which  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  based 
its  figures. 

Salicylic  acid  is  manufactured  on  a  large  scale  in  the  United  States  since  about  1893 
to  1S95.  Prior  to  that  time  practically  all  salicylic  acid  consumed  here  was  supplied 
by  the  German  manufacturers,  who  were  then,  the  same  as  they  are  to-day,  combined 
to  control  the  prices  all  over  the  world.  The  price  was  $1.25  per  pound  when  the  firft 
salicylic  acid  factory  was  erected  in  St.  Louis.  The  American  manufacturers  cut  the 
price  far  below  the  European  prices  and  forced  the  agents  of  the  trust  to  reduce  their 
]  trices  in  the  United  States  to  56  cents  per  pound  for  quantities  oi  more  than  100  pounds. 

Under  the  severe  competition  which  followed,  the  price  for  salicylic  acid  in  this 
country  went  gradually  down  to  about  30  cents  per  pound  and  less  in  wholesale  quan- 
tities. About  ten  years  ago  there  existed  five  manufacturers  of  salicylic  acid  in  the 
United  States,  three  of  which  have  since  failed. 


SCHEDULE  A.  25 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

The  American  manufacturers  are  to-day  the  only  opponents  of  the  European* trust. 
All  other  countries  in  the  world  are  contolled  by  this  trust  and  uniform  prices  are  fixed 
in  every  country,  except  the  United  States,  which  is  left  open  as  a  dumping  ground 
for  any  surplus  that  may  exist.  The  prices  at  which  the  European  manufacturers  ship 
their  salicylic  acid  into  this  country  are  much  lower  than  those  at  which  they  sell  in 
their  home  markets. 

We  respectfully  submit  these  facts.  We  have  already  filed  a  brief  stating  why  the 
maintenance  of  the  present  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid  is  absolu'ely 
necessary,  if  this  industry  is  to  continue  in  the  United  States. 

In  addition  to  this  we  file  herewith  a  memorandum,  showing  that  the  duty  of  5  cents 
per  pound  does  not  even  fully  cover  the  difference  in  cost  of  production  here  and 
abroad. 

THE  HEYDEN  CHEMICAL  WORKS. 
GEORGE  SIMON,  Vice  President. 

Our  plant  at  Garfield,  N.  J.,  for  the  manufacture  of  salicylic  acid,  as  it  now  stands, 
costs  somewhat  more  than  $190,000.  The  greater  part  of  the  machinery  had  to  be 
imported  from  Germany,  and  we  paid  45  per  cent  duty  on  this.  This  duty  and  the 
higher  expense  for  putting  it  up  makes  our  machinery  cost  50  per  cent  more  than 
the  German  manufacturer  has  to  pay  for  his.  Also  our  buildings  are  about  50  per 
cent  more  expensive,  because  it  costs  about  that  much  more  to  erect  a  chemical 
plant  here  than  in  Germany. 

Our  factory  therefore  costs  us  about  $63,000  more  than  a  manufacturer  in 
Germany  has  to  pay  for  a  salicylic-acid  plant  of  equal  size $63, 000 

The  wear  and  tear  of  machinery  in  the  chemical  business,  where  strong 
acids  are  used,  is  generally  figured  at  10  per  cent  per  year. 

Our  salicylic-acid  machinery  costs  us $102, 735 

In  Germany  it  would  cost  only 68, 000 

Our  depreciation  is  therefore  10  pel  cent  of 34, 000 

Higher  than  in  Germany 3, 400 

Besides,  we  have  to  figure  interest  on  the  actual  cost  of  the  investment  on 
buildings  and  machinery;  this  is  $63,000  more  than  in  Germany.  Conse- 
quently, the  difference  in  favor  of  the  German  competitors  is  5  per  cent  of 

this  amount 3, 150 

The  number  of  laborers  employed  in  our  salicylic  acid  works  is  now 
about  40,  including  high-salaried  chemists  and  mechanics,  and  the 
wages  and  salaries  which  we  pay  for  salicylic  acid  total  $28,000  per  year. 

The  German  laborer  receives  only  half  the  amount  of  wages  (see  pp. 
305  and  370  of  your  report). 
This  makes  a  difference  in  favor  of  our  foreign  competitors  of 14, 000 

It  appears  from  this  that  our  highest  cost  for  labor,  depreciation,  and  interest 

alone  amounts  to 20,  550 

This  figure  does,  however,  not  include  the  higher  cost  of  raw  materials, 
some  of  which  are  subject  to  duty  and  cost  considerably  more  here  than 
in  Germany. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  figure  out  exactly  what  the  difference  on  raw  ma- 
terials amounts  to  because  we  do  not  have  the  exact  foreign  values  to  com- 
pare with.  We  estimate  it  at 5, 000 


Total 25,550 

3  per  pound  ( 
ts  per  pound 

Submitted  by— 


5  cents  per  pound  duty  on  500,000  pounds,  $25,000. 
2£  cents  per  pound  duty  on  500,000  pounds,  $12,500. 


THE  HEYDEN  CHEMICAL  WORKS. 
G.  SIMON,  Vice  President. 

Mr.  Simon  also  submitted  the  following  brief  of  the  Heyden  Chemi- 
cal Works,  135  William  Street,  New  York  (factory,  Garfield,  N.  J.), 
supporting  the  maintenance  of  present  rate  of  duty  on  salicylic  acid: 

We  have  submitted  to  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  on  March 
21  a  memorandum  regarding  tariff  bill  H.  R.  20182,  as  passed  on  February  15  by  the 


26  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

House  of  Representatives.  As  our  statements  made  before  the  Senate  committee 
are  matters  of  public  record,  we  refrain  from  repeating  them.  We  beg,  however,  to 
submit  herewith  some  facts  regarding  salicylic  acid,  for  which  we  request  kind  con- 
sideration in  fixing  the  duty  on  this  product  in  the  new  tariff  bill  which  is  expected 
to  be  passed  next  summer. 

Salicylic  acid  is  a  basic  product  used  in  the  manufacture  of  a  number  of  chemicals 
for  pharmaceutical  purposes.  It  is,  therefore,  of  considerable  importance  for  the 
chemical  industry  in  this  country  that  its  source  of  supply  should  not  become  entirely 
foreign.  The  European  market  of  salicylic  acid  is,  and  has  been  for  more  than  25 
years,  controlled  by  a  syndicate,  which  has  fixed  uniform  selling  prices  for  all  coun- 
tries except  the  United  States,  and  is  a  strong  competitor  to  the  salicylic  acid  manu- 
facturers in  our  country. 

The  fight  between  the  European  syndicate  and  the  American  salicylic  acid  manu- 
facturers is  fully  20  years  old. 

In  order  to  afford  the  American  industry  an  adequate  protection  ag_ainst  the  com- 
petition of  the  European  Salicylic  Acid  Trust,  the  Dingley  tariff  provided  for  a  duty 
of  10  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid.  This  rate  was  reduced  to  5  cents  per  pound  in 
the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff,  not  without  causing  considerable  injuries  to  the  American 
salicylic  acid  manufacturers,  and  ever  since  then  they  have  been  hard  pressed  by 
their  European  competitors.  The  tariff  bill  (H.  R.  20182)  which  was  passed  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  February  15,  1912,  made  a  further  reduction  of  the 
present  rate  of  duty  to  2i  cents  per  pound. 

When  we  started  12  years  ago  to  manufacture  salicylic  acid  in  our  factory  at  Gar- 
field,  N.  J.,  there  existed,  besides  us,  four  other  salicylic  acid  manufacturers,  but  the 
prices  have  declined  to  such  an  extent  that  three  of  them  have  since  that  time  failed 
or  suspended  the  manufacture  of  the  product. 

In  the  month  of  November,  1912,  alone,  12,700  pounds  of  salicylic  acid  have  been 
imported  into  this  country,  and  were  sold  at  prices  which  we  had  to  decline  to  meet, 
in  spite  of  the  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound.  A  further  increase  in  these  importations 
will  reduce  our  sales  of  salicylic  acid  to  a  point  where  we  can  not  continue  to 
manufacture  advantageously. 

The  importation  of  above  12.700  pounds  was  preceded  by  the  offer  of  one  member 
of  the  European  salicylic  acid  syndicate  to  withdraw  its  competition  from  the 
American  market  if  we  would  pay  a  yearly  indemnity  of  10,000  francs,  which  was 
promptly  declined. 

We  are  fully  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  tariff  bill  to  be  introduced  next  summer  will 
be  lia  tariff  for  revenue,"  but  we  can  not  believe  that  it  is  the  intention  to  secure  the 
revenue,  in  this  case,  at  the  expense  of  the  destruction  of  an  American  industry. 

Our  pay  roll  for  the  manufacture  of  salicylic  acid  amounts  to  $28,000  per  year. 
Should  the  duty  on  salicylic  acid  be  reduced  below  the  present  rate  of  5  cents  per  pound 
and  the  American  manufacturers  forced  to  discontinue  the  production  of  salicylic 
acid,  the  total  revenue  on  about  500,000  pounds  of  salicylic  acid,  which  would  then 
have  to  be  imported  into  this  country,  would  amount  to  only  $12,500  per  annum. 
To  obtain  this  amount  of  revenue,  property  invested  in  buildings  and  machinery  for 
the  manufacture  of  salicylic  acid  to  the  extent  of  more  than  $200,000  would  have  to  be 
destroyed  and  many  American  workmen  (about  40)  would  be  thrown  out  of 
employment. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  interest  of  the  consumer  shall  receive  first  consideration 
in  fixing  the  rates  of  the  new  tariff  bill. 

The  consumer  would  not  profit  by  a  reduction  in  the  rate  on  salicylic  acid,  for  if 
the  European  trust  thereby  succeeds  in  driving  its  only  competitors  in  America  out 
of  business,  it  will  then  have  an  opportunity  to  advance  the  prices  in  this  country 
without  fear  that  the  American  manufacturers  would  revive,  because  they  would 
know  that  as  soon  as  they  start  operations  again  the  trust  prices  would  again  be  put 
down  to  a  basis  where  the  manufacture  in  America  becomes  unprofitable. 

We  can  not  compete  here  against  German  manufacturers  with  a  duty  of  1\  cents 
per  pound  on  salicylic  acid,  because  our  expense  for  labor  and  chemists'  salaries 
amounts  to  more  thau  twice  as  much  as  that  of'the  European  manufacturers,  our  build- 
ings and  machinery  cost  at  least  50  per  cent  more,  and  therefore  the  depreciation  is 
50  per  cent  higher,  and  our  raw  materials  cost  also  considerably  more  here  than  in 
Germany. 

We  depend  on  the  European  markets  for  cur  supply  of  carbolic  acid.  This  product 
lias,  in  recent  years,  become  so  expensive  that  the  large  and  successful  salicylic  acid 
manufacturers  abroad  have  introduced  in  their  works  synthetic  processes,  starting 
from  benzol  instead  of  carbolic  acid.  In  order  to  be  able  to  compete,  we  shall  be 
obliged  to  do  the  sam«  in  this  country,  but  the  bill  (H.  R.  20182)  which  passed  the 


SCHEDULE   A.  27 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

House  in  February  provides  for  a  duty  of  5  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  benzol.  It  pro- 
vides also  for  a  duty  of  one-quarter  of  1  per  cent  per  pound,  equal  to  about  10  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  on  caustic  soda,  the  raw  material  which  ranges  second  in  importance 
in  the  manufacture  of  salicylic  acid,  and  sulphuric  acid  and  muriatic  acid,  two  other 
materials,  are  almost  twice  as  expensive  here  as  in  Germany. 

We  are  able  to  produce  evidence  that  the  cost  of  making  salicylic  acid  here  is  con- 
siderably more  than  2$  cents  per  pound  higher  than  in  Germany,  and  we  are  con- 
vinced that  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound,  as  now  levied,  is  about  the  lowest  measure 
necessary  to  equalize  the  difference  in  conditions  existing  here  and  abroad. 

The  lowest  price  for  pure  salicylic  acid  is  in  Germany  to-day  26  cents  per  pound. 
A  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound  would  be  less  than  10  per  cent  ad  valorem.  No  other 
fine  chemical  which  requires  a  similar  amount  of  labor  and  expensive  machinery  to 
manufacture  has  been  put  down  in  tariff  bill  H.  R.  20182  at  such  a  low  rate. 

We  respectfully  request  that  in  fixing  the  new  tariff  rates  the  duty  of  5  cents  per 
pound  for  salicylic  acid  be  maintained,  so  that  the  American  industry  may  be  able 
to  keep  up  its  existence  against  the  competition  of  the  European  trust.  Our  country 
would  not  benefit  if  it  should  become  dependent  on  a  European  monopoly  for  the 
supply  of  salicylic  acid. 

The  following  statement  contains  such  information  as  we  are  able  to  give  in  regard 
to  the  outline  suggested  for  preparation  of  briefs  by  the  Hon.  O.  W.  Underwood. 

SCHEDULE    "A,"  PARAGRAPH   I,  SALICYLIC  ACID. 

In  the  foregoing  memorandum  we  respectfully  recommend  the  maintenance  of 
present  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid,  because  the  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States  need  this  duty  in  order  to  maintain  their  existence  against  members  of 
the  European  salicylic  acid  syndicate,  which  use  the  American  market  to  dispose  of 
their  overproduction  at  much  lower  rates  than  they  obtain  in  their  own  home  markets. 

The  amount  of  salicylic  acid  sold  in  the  year  1910  by  all  the  sali- 
cylic acid  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  was  approxi-    Pounds.       Pounds, 
mately r 440,  000 

The  importations  in  1910,  according  to  glossary  on  Schedule  A, 
prepared  by  the  tariff  board,  amounted  to 62, 000 

Total 502, 000 

The  sales  of  the  American  manufacturers  in  1911  amounted  ap- 
proximately to 500,000 

The  importations  in  the  year  1911  to 30,  000 

Total 530,000 

The  sales  by  the  American  manufacturers  in  the  year  1912  are 

estimated  at 480,  000 

And  the  importations  at 50, 000 

Total 530,  000 


Three  years 1, 562,  000 

Average  per  year 520,  666 

We  obtain  our  information  regarding  the  importations  in  the  year  1911  and  1912 
from  import  lists  published  in  trade  papers,  which,  however,  are  not  complete  and 
not  perfectly  reliable,  and  from  the  knowledge  of  sales  of  imported  salicylic  acid  made 
in  these  years. 

A  further  increase  of  importations  and  a  proportionate  decrease  of  the  sales  of  the 
domestic  manufacturers  would  greatly  increase  the  cost  of  manufacture  of  salicylic 
acid,  because  it  would  mean  that  the  factories  could  only  be  run  part  of  the  time, 
which  is  always  very  uneconomical. 

It  would  then  perhaps  be  better  to  entirely  discontinue  the  manufacture. 

The  total  revenue  to  be  derived  by  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound,  if  all  the  salicylic 
acid  sold  in  this  country  is  imported,  will  be  about  $25,000  per  year. 

With  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  the  American  industry  will,  however,  continue 
and  perhaps  50,000  pounds  will  be  imported,  the  same  as  in  previous  years.  The 
revenue  on  this  amount  will  be  $2,500.  Should  the  duty  be  cut  to  2£  cents  per  pound, 
and  should  all  salicylic  acid  be  imported,  the  revenue  derived  therefrom  would 
amount  to  $12,500.  This  revenue  would  then  have  been  procured  by  destruction  of 
the  domestic  industry. 


28  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  1— ACIDS. 

The  glossary  on  Schedule  A  prepared  by  the  tariff  board  gives  the  ad  volorem  duty 
on  imports  in  1910  at  a  rate  of  10  cents  per  pound  (under  the  Dingley  tariff)  as  32.84 
per  cent.  At  the  rate  of  5  cents  per  pound  (under  the  present  tariff)  as  30.36  per  cent. 
This  seems  contradictory;  if  the  rate  of  10  cents  per  pound  is  32.84  per  cent,-  the  rate  of 
5  cents  per  pound  should  be  16.52  per  cent  and  not  30.36  per  cent. 

We  can  explain  this  apparent  discrepancy  by  the  statement  that  the  salicylic  acid 
imported  in  the  year  1910  at  a  rate  of  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  was  not  pure  salicylic 
acid,  but  a  crude  product  which  was  sold  very  much  below  the  value  of  the  regular 
salicylic  acid  standardized  by  the  United  States  Pharmacopoeia. 

The  above  compilations  have  been  made  as  carefully  and  conscientiously  as  possible, 
and  we  believe  that  they  are  correct. 

NEW  YORK,  December  20,  1912. 

BRIEF  OF  MERCK  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  ST.  LOUIS,  MO., 

AND  RAHWAY,  N.  J. 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Schedule  A  should  be  modernized  as  to  classification. — There  are  many 
anomalies  in  classification  resulting  from  the  patchwork  methods  of 
past  revisions.  This  condition  requires  no  extended  comment,  as  it 
has  already  been  pointed  out  by  the  report  on  Schedule  A  by  your 
committee  in  connection  with  H.  R.  20182,  passed  at  the  last  session 
of  Congress.  It  is  entirely  in  order  that  there  should  be  revision  of 
the  text  of  the  law  to  modernize  the  classification. 

Basket-clause  definitions  should  he  precise. — In  the  tariff  acts  of  the 
past  there  has  been  too  much  uncertainty,  and  it  has  frequently 
required  protracted  litigation  to  find  out  the  meaning  of  tariff  terms 
in  Schedule  A. 

The  new  law  should  set  definite  standards  and  make  clear  what  is 
the  precise  meaning,  for  tariff  purposes,  of  the  terms  used  in  the  vari- 
ous basket  clauses,  such  as  acids,  chemical  compounds,  chemical  mix- 
tures (whatever  these  may  be),  drugs,  medicinal  preparations,  etc. 

Radical  revision  of  rates  downward. — Revision  of  the  rates  downward 
in  Schedule  A  to  any  such  extent,  for  instance,  as  provided  in  H.  R. 
20182  of  the  last  session,  would  seriously  disturb  the  chemical  industry 
of  this  country. 

We  are  large  importers,  as  well  as  large  manufacturers,  of  the  class 
of  so-called  fine  chemicals,  and  where  we  might  be  put  to  a  disadvan- 
tage by  a  reduction  of  the  rates  in  one  case  we  would  gain  correspond- 
ingly on  the  side  of  our  import  business. 

We  would  probably  be  less  affected  than  any  other  American  house 
in  our  line  by  radical  changes  such,  for  instance,  as  were  adopted  by 
the  old  11.  R.  20182,  so  far  as  direct  effects  upon  our  manufacturing 
and  import  costs  arc  concerned.  But  we  fear  that  a  cut  from  the 
present  average  of  about  25  per  cent  to  a  rate  of,  say,  15  per  cent, 
cutting  the  old  one  almost  in  half,  would  result  in  a  serious  unsettle- 
mont  of  trade  conditions  in  the  chemical  industry. 

It  is  our  opinion,  based  upon  our  dual  experience  and  interest  as 
manufacturers  and  importers,  that  the  average  rate  of  about  25  per 
cent,  in  general,  marks  the  legitimate  line  of  division  between  protec- 
tion and  revenue  for  lino  chemicals. 

\Vo  do  not  argue  for  or  against  protection  as  such,  but  we  strongly 
urge  against  such  radical  revision  as  will  surely  upset  trade  condi- 


SCHEDULE   A.  29 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

tions  and  ruin  running  plants  whicli  have  existed  for  decades.  Both 
protectionists  and  free  traders  must  agree  that  sudden  transition 
from  one  condition  of  cost  basis  to  another  is  as  unkealthy  for  com- 
mercial organizations  as  is  a  violent  change  of  temperature  or  atmos- 
pheric pressure  to  the  individual  human  organism.  And  we  insist 
that  an  absolute  reduction  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  in  a  rate  of  duty 
is  a  radical  cut.  The  increased  amount  of  revenue  that  may  be  col- 
lected as  a  result  of  such  cut  will  be  incommensurate  with  the  indirect 
effect  upon  the  commerce  in  that  product. 

Raw  materials  now  free  should  not  J)e  assessed. — We  urge  upon  your 
committee  also  the  danger  and  unwisdom  of  imposing  heavy  taxes  on 
such  raw  materials  as  are  now  free  of  duty.  They  are  not  only 
burdensome  to  the  manufacturer  in  unsettling  his  business,  which 
has  hitherto  adjusted  itself  to  the  natural  trade  conditions,  but  they 
are,  eventually,  transferred  to  the  consumer  in  increased  measure 
through  concentration  of  the  product,  additional  profits,  etc.,  pro- 
vided, of  course,  that  the  manufacturer  is  not  altogether  put  out  of 
the  business  of  making  the  articles  in  which  the  raw  material  is  used. 

Dynamiting  the  tariff  wall. — Your  honorable  chairman  is  reported 
to  have  stated  in  an  interview  as  follows:  "To  reach  this  result  I 
prefer  to  lower  the  tariff  wall,  by  taking  bricks  off  the  top  of  the  wall, 
rather  than  dynamiting  the  structure  at  the  bottom."  We  would 
respectfully  express  our  conviction  that  assessment  of  duties  on  such 
raw  materials  as  are  now  being  supplied  to  the  trade  free  of  duty  is 
applying  dynamite  at  the  bottom  of  the  structure. 

If  theory  of  protection  justifiable  at  all,  is  so  in  chemical  industry. — If 
the  element  ot  protection  to  infant  industry  is  to  be  considered  to  any 
degree,  it  may  be  noted  in  passing  that  the  chemical  industry  as  a 
whole  in  this  country  is,  generally  speaking,  far  behind  that  of  Ger- 
many, which  has  attained  a  high  state  of  development.  ("Her 
supremacy  as  a  whole  is  at  present  undisputed,  etc." — Page  363, 
report  on  Schedule  A  of  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  1912.} 

STATEMENT    AS    TO    SPECIAL    ITEMS. 

Paragraph  1:  Acid,  salicylic. — The  present  rate  on  this  article  is  5 
cents  per  pound,  and  this  should  not  be  changed.  The  present  cur- 
rent German  market  value  ranges  from  2.40  marks  to  2.80  marks 
per  ko.  (26 \  to  30£  cents  per  pound).  The  short  price  is  for  1,000  kp. 
(  =  1  ton).  A  duty  of  2£  cents  per  pound — as  fixed,  for  instance,  in 
H.  R.  20182 — is  equivalent  therefore  to  a  very  low  and  unfair  ad 
valorem  rate,  and  such  a  rate  will  simply  put  the  American  salicylic 
acid  business  out  of  existence. 

Error  in  report  of  Tariff  Board. — In  the  appendix  attached  to  the 
report  on  Schedule  A  (H.  R.  20182)  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of 
the  specific  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  on  salicylic  acid  (act  1909)  is 
given  as  about  30  per  cent  for  the  year  1910;  under  the  act  of  r897 
(year  1905),  with  the  duty  at  10  cents  per  pound,  the  equivalent 
ad  valorem  rate  is  calculated  at  32  per  cent.  These  figures  mani- 
festly embody  an  error;  comparison  with  present  values  shows  that 
5  cents  per  pound  figures  less  than  20  per  cent. 


30  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

Paragraph  593:  Iodine,  crude. — Iodine,  crude,  being  a  raw  material, 
should  be  retained  on  the  free  list  for  the  reasons  previously  stated  in 
our  general  remarks  in  regard  to  the  taxation  of  raw  products. 
Iodine  is  used  in  preparing  many  important  pharmaceutical  and 
photographic  preparations  and  also  in  the  manufacture  of  aniline 

Paragraph  4-1:  Opium,  morphine,  coca  leaves,  cocaine. — The  tariff 
tax  on  opium,  coca  leaves,  etc.,  should  not  at  this  time  be  further 
increased,  as  they  are  already  carrying  an  exceptionally  heavy  rate 
for  drugs  and  as  it  is  also  contemplated  to  impose  an  internal-revenue 
tax  on  these  products  and  to  assess  in  addition  a  special  tax  on 
manufacturers  of  and  dealers  in  these  articles  and  preparations. 

Internal-revenue  taxes  on  narcotics. — The  collection  of  such  internal- 
revenue  taxes  on  these  products  will  create  efficient  machinery  for 
restricting  the  traffic  with  habitues.  An  increased  tariff  tax  would 
not  have  any  effect  on  the  illegitimate  traffic,  but  in  the  meantime 
the  accumulated  charges  will  have  considerably  augmented  the  cost 
to  the  legitimate  consumer. 

Rate  on  morphine  and  cocaine. — However,  if  the  duty  is  increased 
on  opium  and  on  coca  leaves  (as  was  done  in  H.  R.  20182),  then  there 
should  also  be  a  revision  of  the  duty  rate  on  their  alkaloids  accord- 
ingly. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MERCK  &  Co., 
New  York,  N.  Y.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and  Rahway,  N.  J. 

JANUARY  6,  1913. 

STATEMENT  OF  ELSON  &  BREWER  (INC.),  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  11,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,   Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  beg  herewith  to  urge  a  further  reduction  in  the  duty  on 
salicylic  acid.  Act  H.  R.  20182  provided  a  specific  duty  of  1\  cents 
per  pound,  which  at  present  prices  would  be  about  11  per  cent  on  the 
chemically  pure  product  and  15  per  cent  on  the  technical  salicylic 
acid. 

Inasmuch  as  both  grades  are  largely  used  as  basic  raw  materials 
for  the  manufacture  of  medicinal  chemicals,  it  is  evident  that  it  would 
be  to  the  interest  of  the  masses  to  transfer  this  product  to  the  free 
list. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

ELSON  &  BREWER  (!NC.), 
B.  ELSON,  President, 
American  Agents  for  the  Societe  Chimique  des  Usines  du  Rhone, 

Paris  and  Lyon  (France). 


SCHEDULE   A.  31 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 
GALLIC  AND   PYROGALLIC   ACIDS. 

STATEMENT  OF  WILLIAM   A.    WHITE,  OF   HARTFORD,    REPRE- 
SENTING THE  EASTERN  CHEMICAL  WORKS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  now  hear  Mr.  William  A.  White,  repre- 
senting the  Eastern  Chemical  Works. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  made  our  brief  filed  before 
the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  a  part  of  this  brief,  and  I  think, 
perhaps,  I  had  better  read  from  that  first.  [Reading:] 

GALLIC   AND   PYROGALLIC   ACIDS. 

This  company  was  organized  in  1910,  and  after  extensive  experiments  purchased 
land,  erected  buildings,  and  had  special  machinery  constructed  for  the  manufacture 
of  pyrogallic  and  gallic  acids,  which  are  at  present  entirely  imported  from  Germany. 
The  prospects  of  success  were  based  upon  the  assumption  that  an  infant  industry  such 
as  this,  struggling  against  great  odds,  would  be  protected  from  ruinous  competition 
from  abroad.  The  foreign  manufacturers  of  the  above-mentioned  products  are  un- 
questionably in  a  much  better  position,  for  they  enjoy  the  advantages  of  enormous 
capital,  lon»  established  works,  sales  organizations,  extensive  experience  in  the  art 
and  particularly  cheap  manual  and  professional  labor.  In  order  to  succeed  in  the 
manufacture  of  these  chemicals  in  the  United  States,  it  was  necessary  to  work  out 
entirely  different  processes  in  order  to  avoid  manual  labor  as  far  as  possible.  After 
the  expenditure  of  much  time  and  money  we  are  now  so  far  advanced  that  the  appear- 
ance of  our  product  on  the  market  is  only  a  matter  of  a  few  months. 

If,  however,  the  proposed  bill  should  be  enacted  into  law,  all  our  labor  and  money 
will  be  lost  for  the  following  reasons. 

Pyrogallol  was  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909;  it 
came  in  under  the  head  of  a  "medicinal  preparation  not  specially  provided  for" 
(Schedule  A,  65)  at  25  per  cent  ad  valorem — we  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
it  is  a  United  States  Pharmacopeia  article — later  it  came  in  under  the  head  of  "all 
other  products  or  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not  colors  or  dyes  and  not  medicinal,  not 
especially  provided  for"  (Schedule  A,  15)  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  And  this  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  medicinal  preparation  mentioned  in  the  United  States 
Pharmacopoeia  and  is  also  used  as  a  dye  in  dyeing  furs. 

Gallic  acid  enters  under  the  specific  duty  of  8  cents  per  pound  (Schedule  A,  1). 

The  proposed  bill  makes  a  specific  duty  of  4  cents  per  pound  on  gallic  acid  and  of 
6  cents  per  pound  on  pyrogallic  acid.  Gallic  acid  can  not  be  made  in  this  country 
under  so  small  a  protection,  until  the  manufacturers  have  becoma  well  known  to 
the  trade  and  have  had  time  to  refine  the  processes  so  as  to  reduce  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction as  much  as  possible.  The  reasons  for  this  are  that  the  raw  material,  nut- 
galls,  must  be  imported  at  great  risk  to  the  buyer,  as  shipments  are  very  irregular 
and  at  times  impossible  on  account  of  the  political  conditions  in  the  only  countries 
where  this  crop  is  gathered,  namely,  China,  Turkey,  and  Persia.  This  is  shown 
by  the  imports  of  gall  nuts  during  the  last  six  months.  Under  normal  conditions 
the  crop  is  gathered  so  that  the  first  shipments  start  about  August  and  most  of  the 
crop  follows  during  the  fall  and  winter,  but  during  the  six  months  ending  March  1, 
1912,  we  can  only  get  a  record  of  a  few  small  lots.  Another  very  important  "reason" 
is  that  the  consumption  of  gallic  acid  is  not  great  enough  to  warrant  its  manufacture 
in  large  quantities  at  one  time,  which  means  that  the  labor  element  constitutes  a 
very  large  proportion  of  the  cost  of  production;  and  it  must  also  be  mentioned  that  the 
manufacture  requires  skilled  labor  and  a  well-trained  chemist. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  as  soon  as  the  manufacture  of  any  kind  of  chemicals  is 
taken  up  here,  the  foreign  manufacturer  reduces  his  price,  and  this  is  well  illustrated 
in  the  case  of  hydroquinone,  which  is  used  in  photography  for  same  purpose  as  pyro. 
Here  we  are  told  that  the  only  American  producer  has  been  forced  to  sell  his  product 
at  so  near  cost  as  to  leave  scarcely  any  profit,  and  were  it  not  for  the  loss  in  capital  in- 
vested in  machinery  etc.,  would  abandon  the  manufacture  at  once. 

This  gallic  acid  is  the  product  of  which  pyrogallic  acid  is  made,  and  theoretically  2 
pounds  of  pyro  will  be  produced  from  3  pounds  of  gallic,  but  in  actual  practice  the 
yield  does  not  approximate  any  such  amount  on  account  of  the  unavoidable  losses  in 
operation.  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  in  this  case  the  duty  on  the  prime  material 
(gallic  acid)  is  virtually  higher  than  that  on  the  finished  product  (pyrogallic  acid); 


32  TARIFF   HEARINGS.  „ 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

for  example,  3  pounds  of  gallic  acid  with  the  proposed  duty  of  4  cents  per  pound 
amount  to  12  cents,  while  the  duty  on  the  pyro  that  can  be  obtained  from  3  pounds  of 
gallic  acid  would  amount  to  only  about  9  cents  at  proposed  rate  of  6  cents  por  pound . 

That  was  our  brief  before  the  Senate  Finance  Committee. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  But  the  ad  valorem  equivalents  are  very  much  the 
same  thing  on  the  figures  taken  from  the'  Treasury  books,  in  one  case 
10.14,  and  in  the  other  9.60.  Those  are  the  only  figures  we  can  go  by. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes;  but  you  are  taking  the  figures  of  the  propor- 
tionate tariff  per  pound  or  per  dollar's  worth,  but  gallic  acid  is  prac- 
tically a  raw  material  for  pyrogallic  acid. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  the  product  in  the  United  States  for 
1912? 

Mr.  WHITE.  How  much  was  it? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  did  it  amount  to,  the  American  product  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  have  no  report  for  1912,  but  I  gave  it  in  my  previous 
evidence  for  1907,  1908,  1909,  1910  and  1911.  The  Oil,  Paint,  and 
Drug  Report  gives  it  for  1907,  1908,  1909,  1910,  and  1911.  It  was 
38,000  pounds  for  1907.  This  is  merely  in  thousands. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  that  in  dollars  ?  How  much  would  it 
be,  about? 

Mr.  WHITE.  For  the  fiscal  year  1908-9  the  average  invoice  price 
was  $1.04.  This  is  the  price  on  which  duty  was  computed.  In  1908, 
it  was  32,000  pounds,  23,000  pounds  in  1909,  37,000  pounds  in  1910, 
22,000  pounds  in  1911.  [Reading:] 

Since  appearing  before  the  Committee  on  Finance  of  the  United  States  Senate, 
we  have  entered  the  market  and  we  have  found  that  the  statements  made  in  our 
brief  "submitted  to  that  committee  and  hereto  appended  have  been  fully  substan- 
tiated by  the  facts  brought  to  light  by  our  actual  manufacturing  experience.  Espe- 
cial attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that  we  find  the  item  for  wages  and  sal- 
aries to  all  employees  to  constitute  about  35  per  cent  of  the  present  selling  price. 
This  item  alone  is  well  known  to  be  at  least  twice  as  high  as  that  borne  by  the  Ger- 
man manufacturer  and  is  the  Chief  reason  why  we  are  compelled  to  ask  for  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  present  rate  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  for  pyrogallic  acid  and  of  8 
cents  per  pound  on  gallic  acid.  The  now  existing  rates  are  barely  sufficient  to 
equalize  the  difference  in  the  item  of  wages  and  salaries  above  mentioned. 

Another  reason  is  that  the  revenue  would  decrease,  for  the  amount  of  pyrogallic 
and  gallic  acids  imported  would  not  increase  at  all  by  any  lowering  of  the  duty,  since 
at  present  the  entire  consumption  of  this  country  is  imported  from  Germany,  and 
consequently  the  revenue  would  be  smaller  in  exactly  the  same  proportion  as  the  duty 
is  lowered.  The  Germans  and  their  agents  here  would  be  the  only  ones  benefited 
by  such  a  measure.  The  manufacture  of  these  articles,  which  is  a  difficult  one,  would 
be  ruined  by  their  competitive  practices  and  they  would  be  given  the  monopoly 
which  we  are  now  trying  to  wrest  from  them.  As  they  are  not  hindered,  and,  if 
anything,  encouraged  to  form  syndicates,  which  are  unlawful  in  this  country,  they 
will  dump  their  goods  on  our  market  until  we  are  ruined  and  then  reimburse  themselves 
by  fixing  the  prices  so  high  after  that  end  is  once  attained  that  the  consumer  will  be 
much  worse  off  than  if  through  a  slight  protection  competition  had  been  kept  alive. 
The  practice  here  mentioned  is  proven  by  the  statistics  of  importations.  For  instance, 
during  the  fiscal  year  1908-9  the  average  invoice  price  of  pyrogallic  acid  was  $1.04. 
In  1909-10  the  average  invoice  price  of  pyrogallic  acid  was  |0.68.  In  1910-11  the 
average  invoice  price  of  pyrogallic  acid  was"$0.641. 

That  was  owing  to  the  tremendous  competition  between  manufac- 
turers in  Germany  who  afterwards  got  together,  and  the  price  for 
the  last  quarter  of  1911  and  1912  was  95  cents. 

We  have  invested  a  large  sum  of  money  in  experiments  to  adapt  this  difficult  indus- 
try to  the  peculiar  conditions  existing  here,  and  more  money  was  spent  in  buying 
land  and  building  and  equipping  a  factory.  The  equipment  is  all  of  such  a  nature 
that  it  had  to  be  designed  and  built  specially  for  our  particular  needs,  and  jf  we  are 


SCHEDULE   A.  33 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

ruined  by  any  lowering  of  the  present  duties  on  the  articles  in  which  we  are  interested 
nearly  all  this  could  not  be  sold  or  utilized  for  any  other  purpose,  but  would  be  scrapped 
at  a  total  loss. 

For  the  reasons  above  set  forth  we  would  respectfully  ask  for  a  continuance  of  the 
present  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  pyrogallic  acid  and  of  8  cents  a  pound  on 
gallic  acid,  which,  all  things  considered,  are  not  too  high  and  would  not  create  a 
monopoly  on  this  side.  We  shall  then  in  this  country  be  enabled  to  fight  the  German 
monopoly  and  to  gradually  build  up  an  independent  industry. 

We  may  sum  up  the  consequence  of  any  lowering  of  the  tariff  on  pyrogallic  acid 
and  gallic  acid  thus: 

First.  Smaller  revenue  for  the  United  States  Treasury. 

Second.  Higher  prices  to  the  consumer. 

Third.  Strengthening  of  the  grip  of  the  German  monopoly. 

Fourth.  Ruin  of  a  young  industry  which  now  promises  to  create  competition  and 
ultimately  reduce  the  price  to  the  consumer. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  long  do  you  think  it  would  take,  with  this 
present  tariff,  for  that  industry  to  become  an  old  industry — that  is, 
not  an  infant  industry — one  tnat  would  not  need  this  protection  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  say,  but  if  we  should  be 
able  to  get  hold  of  the  market  firmly  in  five  years  we  should  accom- 
plish a  great  deal,  I  think. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  would  not  need  much  protection,  then? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  think  we  would.  I  think  as  soon  as  we  have 
become  known  to  the  trade  and  have  a  chance  to  refine  our  methods 
so  as  to  reduce  the  labor  element  as  far  as  possible,  we  shall  not  object 
to  a  reasonable  lowering  of  the  tariff;  but  we  shall  always  have  the 
element  of  low  wages  paid  to  foreign  labor  to  contend  with.  In 
Germany,  in  a  continuous  process,  the  laborers  work  12  hours  a  day. 
They  have  two  shifts  which  work  the  entire  24  hours.  Our  laborers 
work  9  hours.  If  we  put  on  continuous  process  we  must  have  three 
shifts  of  8  hours.  We  could  not  get  laborers  to  work  12  hours  here. 
Not  only  that,  but  we  pay  our  laborers  $12  to  $15  a  week.  Over 
there  they  pay  not  over  naif  of  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  Gallic  acid  is  made  from  nutgalls,  which  are  on  the 
free  list? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Pyrogallic  acid  is  made  from  gallic  acid  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  This  bill  of  last  session  cuts  the  duties  on  both  of  them 
about  60  per  cent,  from  25  to  10.  The  question  I  want  to  ask  is,  Can 
you  continue  to  manufacture  the  gallic  and  pyrogallic  acid  if  nutgalls 
remain  on  the  free  list,  as  they  are  now,  with  a  reduction  of  60  per 
cent  of  the  present  duty  without  cutting  your  wages  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  We  can  not  do  it  under  any  conditions. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then,  you  can  not  continue  the  manufacture  at  all? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  process  of  making  pyrogallic  acid  out 
of  gallic  acid  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  a  secret  process.     I  can  tell  you  in  a  general  way. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  it  an  expensive  process  ?  Is  it  a  high  grade  of 
manufacture  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  not  a  high  grade  of  manufacturing,  as  classed 
with  watchmaking,  perhaps,  or  something  of  that  character,  but  it 
requires  a  class  of  labor  that  we  pay  from  two  to  two  and  a  half  dollars 
a  day. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 3 


34  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  make  it  out  of  gallic  acid  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes.  We  are  now  trying  to  make  our  own  gallic  acid. 
We  expect  to  make  our  own  gallic  acid.  We  have  large  quantities 
of  nutgalls  now  on  the  way  from  China,  and  while  we  nave  not  yet 
made  our  gallic  acid  so  as  to  be  able  to  compete  with  the  gallic  acid 
we  can  buy  abroad,  we  fully  expect  to  do  it,  and  we  can  say  it  is  an 
assured  thing. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  About  how  much  of  this  acid  is  consumed  in  the 
United  States  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  imported  only  about  $9,000  worth  of  it  last 
year,  and  I  believe  your  figures  there  gave  a  production  of  about 
$22,000,  so  that  would  indicate  we  did  not  consume  over  $32,000 
all  over  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Treasury  figures,  or  the  import  figures,  are  very 
misleading. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  There  must  have  been  some  smuggling  going  on. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Oh,  no,  sir.  I  beg  your  pardon.  The  acid  comes  in 
under  "Other  articles  not  specifically  mentioned." 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  No,  it  comes  in  under  "gallic  acid." 

Mr.  WHITE.  Pyrogallic  acid,  too. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  I  wanted  to  get  at  is  this:  Is  it  a  big  industry  ? 
Do  we  make  as  much  as  $1,000,000  worth  in  the  United  States?  Is 
there  much  of  it  consumed  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No,  sir.  At  present  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the 
exact  amount  of  pyrogallic  acid  imported.  It  is  well  known  to  the 
trade  that  the  actual  amount  imported  is  much  larger  than  the 
Treasury  reports  show.  We  have  been  told  by  Mr.  O.  P.  Austin,  of 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  that  this  is  on  account  of  pyrogallic  acid 
not  being  specially  mentioned  in  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909.  It 
is  optional  with  the  importer  to  enter  it  as  pyrogallic  acid  or  as  "an 
acid  not  specially  provided  for."  (Schedule  A,  par.  1.)  Reliable 
estimates  place  the  actual  importation  at  between  100,000  and 
]  50, 000  pounds  annually. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  passed  over  your  time  considerably.  Is 
that  all  you  desire  to  say  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Is  your  labor  any  more  efficient  than  similar 
labor  in  Europe  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  believe  it  is. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Does  Germany  get  her  supply  of  nutgalls  from  China 
also  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  The  world's  supply  comes  from  China? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Practically.  Some  comes  from  Persia  and  some  from 
Turkey,  but  practically  all  from  China. 


SCHEDULE   A.  35 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 
BRIEF  OF  BAKER  &  ADAMSON  CHEMICAL  CO.,  EASTON,  PA. 

EASTON,  PA.,  January  27,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  So  far  as  this  company's  interests  are  concerned  the  changes 
proposed  in  the  Underwood  bill  (H.  R.  20182)  would  be  injurious  only 
in  respect  to  the  following  reductions  in  the  duties  on  five  photographic 
chemicals,  ail  of  which  are  coal-tar  products,  except  pyrogallic  acid: 

1.  Mono^methyl-para-amido-phenol    (known  as    "metol"):   Present 
duty,  20  per  cent  (par.  15);  proposed  duty,  15  per  cent  (H.  R.  20182, 
par.  22). 

2.  Diphenyl  oxide:  Present  duty,  20  per  cent  (par.  15);  proposed 
duty,  15  per  cent  (H.  R.  20182,  par.  22). 

3.  Cinnamic  acid:  Present  dutv,  25  per  cent  (par.  1);  proposed 
duty,  15  per  cent  (H.  R.  20182,  par.  1). 

4.  Pyrogallic  acid:  Present  duty,  25  per  cent  (par.  1);  proposed 
duty,  6  cents  per  pound  (H.  R.  20182,  par.  1). 

5.  Hydroguinone  (hydrochinori) :  Present  duty,  25  per  cent  (par.  65) 
or  20  per  cent  (par.  %15);  proposed  duty,  15  per  cent  (H.  R.  20182, 
par.  22). 

Since  our  domestic  trade  in  these  articles  is  controlled  by  Europe, 
and  since  European  exportations  to  the  United  States  are  sold  at 
prices  having  no  relation  to  the  rate  of  duty,  we  think  it  certain  that 
a  moderate  increase  in  the  rate  of  duty  would  not  tend  to  increase 
domestic  prices. 

We,  therefore,  suggest  an  advance  of  duty  to  30  or  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem  generally  on  all  coal-tar  chemicals  covered  by  paragraph  22 
of  the  bill  under  consideration,  and  on  cinnamic  acid  and  pyrogallic 
acid  belonging  to  paragraph  1. 

Practically  the  entire  domestic  consumption  of  fine  chemicals,  espe- 
cially coal-tar  products  such  as  the  five  above  specified,  is  and  always 
has  been  imported  from  Europe,  where  the  production  and  sale  are 
controlled  by  "convention"  embracing  substantially  all  the  manu- 
facturers. As  a  consequence,  exportations  to  the  United  States  are 
sold  at  prices  generally  very  much  in  excess  of  cost,  since  very  few  of 
the  articles  are  manufactured  in  this  country.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  European  prices  to  the  United  States  for  those  few  articles  which 
domestic  manufacturers  have  lately  attempted  to  produce  and  sell  in 
competition  with  the  foreign  "convention"  are  frequently,  if  not  gen- 
erally, below  cost  in  accordance  with  the  avowed  and  determined 
policy  of  European  manufacturers  to  stamp  out  all  attempted  Ameri- 
can competition  in  this  entire  field. 

This  is  the  case  with  the  five  articles  above  specified.  Until  1910 
none  of  them  was  manufactured  in  this  country.  Since  that  time  we 
have  manufactured  and  sold  each  of  them  in  quantities  which  are 
relatively  small  as  compared  with  the  European  exportations  to  this 
country.  The  following  table  of  domestic  prices  for  these  articles  in 
1910  and  1913  illustrates  both  the  excessive  European  prices  for  fine 
chemicals  when  not  produced  in  this  country  and  the  European  cut- 
throat prices  for  those  few  which  domestic  manufacturers  attempt  to 


36  TABIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

produce  and  sell  in  competition  with  the  European  "convention." 
Obviously,  neither  scale  of  prices  bears  any  "relation  to  the  present 
relatively  insignificant  duties  on  these  articles : 


1910 

1913 

Metol                                                

$5.  .50 

$2  .50 

Diphenyl  oxide                 

4.00 

1.25 

2.00 

1.00 

Pyrogallic  acid           

1.80 

1.20 

Hydroquinone  

1.20 

.52 

Past  experience  shows,  therefore,  that  so  lonj*  as  the  United 
States  market  in  these  and  similar  articles  is  controlled  by  Europe— 
which  must  be  for  a  long  time  to  come— any  ordinary  rate  of  duty 
is  not  an  appreciable  factor,  either  in  the  determination  of  the 
volume  of  imports  or  in  the  determination  of  domestic  prices. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

BAKER  &  ADAMSON  CHEMICAL  Co., 
GEORGE  P.  ADAMSON,  Vice  President. 

SULPHURIC  ACID.  ' 

STATEMENT    OF  W.  H.   NICHOLS,   JR.,   VICE    PRESIDENT    OF 
THE  GENERAL  CHEMICAL  CO. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
represent  the  General  Chemical  Co.,  manufacturers  of  what  is  known 
as  heavy,  inorganic  chemicals  almost  exclusively,  such  as  sulphuric, 
muriatic,  and  nitric  acids,  some  of  the  soda  products,  and  some  of 
the  alums.  We  have  never  enjoyed  a  very  serious  protective  tariff 
in  our  particular  branch  of  the  chemical  industry,  and  it  was  not 
with  the  idea  of  complaining  that  the  tariff  is  not  sufficient  to  pro- 
tect us  on  the  bulk  of  our  manufactures  that  I  appear  here.  I  believe 
it  is  true  in  our  line  of  business  that  we  need  no  protection  based 
solely  on  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  this 
country  and  abroad.  We  have  tried  to  take  the  best  methods  that 
wo  can  find  and  adapt  them  to  the  conditions  in  this  country,  enabling 
us  to  pay  the  same  rate  of  wages  to  our  workmen  as  in  other  lines  of 
industry,  and  making  it  unnecessary  in  many  cases  to  ask  for  pro- 
tection. 

There  are  two  or  three  articles  that  we  are  interested  in  that  I 
believe  have  been  overlooked,  or  possibly  have  not  been  fully  under- 
stood by  the  committee  having  this  matter  of  revision  in  charge. 
Out  of  the  30  or  40  articles  that  we  manufacture  there  are  practically 
only  three  on  which  we  would  bring  up  this  question  of  possible  error. 
One  is  what  is  known  as  sodium  sulphide.  The  solution  of  sodium 
sulphide  has  been  put  on  the  same  basis  as  the  concentrated  in  the 
proposed  bill,  so  that  an  article  of  twice  the  strength  of  the  solution 
comes  in  at  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  the  solution.  The  concentrated 
should  take  twice  the  duty  of  solution. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  an  ad  valorem  rate  or  a  specific  rate? 


SCHEDULE   A.  37 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  A  specific  rate.  Epsom  salts,  in  which  we  are  inter- 
ested, and,  as  has  been  pointed  out  in  your  very  complete  appendix 
and  glossary  to  the  chemical  schedule,  is  made  largely  from  magne- 
site.  It  is  also  manufactured  from  kieserite  or  crude  magnesite  sul- 
phate which  is  a  production  of  a  German  syndicate.  I  think  under 
the  present  wording  of  the  proposed  bill,  the  crude  material  takes 
the  same  duty  as  Epsom  salts,  which  is  cut  from  the  old  rate  of  20 
cents  to  10  cents  per  100  pounds.  We  are  entirely  in  the  hands  of 
our  German  friends  in  this  matter,  as  we  make  our  Epsom  salts  on 
suiferance.  They  are  getting  to-day,  as  near  as  I  can  discover,  a 
little  more  for  the  crude  kieserite  than  they  are  from  their  Epsom, 
after  they  have  manufactured  it  from  kieserite,  and  it  is  simply  a 
question  of  what  they  want  to  let  us  make  over  here.  The  duty 
should  remain  on  Epsom  salts  and  kieserite  should  be  free. 

The  third  article  is  acetic  acid.  This  under  the  old  schedule  took 
a  moderate  duty  for  the  weaker  strength  and  2  cents  a  pound  for  the 
so-called  strong  glacial  acid.  It  is  now  proposed  that  acetic  acid  be 
placed  entirely  upon  the  free  list.  On  the  other  hand,  you  have  put 
on  the  dutiable  list  acetic  anhydride,  which  may  be  said  to  be  still 
stronger,  at  2^  cents  a  pound.  I  should  urge  very  much  the  placing 
of  glacial  acid  on  the  dutiable  list  at  something  like  the  old  rate  of  2 
cents  a  pound,  whether  the  weaker  acid  is  or  is  not.  These  materials 
I  believe  to  be  illustrations  of  chemicals  that  can  come  into  this 
country  at  times  irrespective  of  the  rate  of  tariff  that  is  placed  upon 
them — the  so-called  "dumping7'  of  certain  surplus  manufactured 
products  from  the  other  side.  While  we  have  by-product  acid  in  this 
country,  large  volumes  of  it,  it  is  made  at  points  where  the  freight  to 
the  consuming  points  is  very  heavy;  but  in  many  directions  we  are 
growing  faster  man  our  production  of  by-product  materials.  On  the 
other  hand  many  of  our  European  manufacturing  competitors  have 
surplus  sulphuric  acid  to  place.  They  can  not  place  it  directly  as 
sulphuric  acid  and  it  must  therefore  be  placed  as  one  of  the  salts,  as 
glacial  acetic  acid,  or  some  other  product  made  by  the  use  of  sul- 
phuric acid.  Seeing  the  need  of  protecting  themselves  from  this  class 
of  importation  Canada  instituted  what  is  known  as  a  dumping  clause, 
and  I  believe  it  has  been  successful.  Whether  or  not  it  is  wise  to 
enact  such  a  clause  into  our  law,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  do  think, 
however,  that  inasmuch  as  we  must  secure  in  this  country  some 
revenue  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Government,  I  think  the  duty 
should  be  placed  on  just  such  things  as  these  I  have  mentioned — and 
of  course  there  are  many  other  things  upon  which  it  will  be  perfectly 
reasonable  and  fair  to  place  a  duty.  It  is  quite  immaterial,  on  some 
of  these  things  what  the  duty  is.  If  the  foreign  manufacturer  wants 
to  place  them  here,  he  is  going  to  place  them  here  .  We  are  going  to 
do  our  best  to  keep  them  from  taking  our  business  away  from  us, 
whether  there  is  a  duty  or  whether  there  is  not  a  duty.  In  our 
experience  we  have  found  that  irrespective  of  duty  many  of  the 
foreign  manufacturers  will  bring  in  such  articles  as  glacial  acetic 
acid,  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  cost  but  simply  as  a 
surplus  material  that  they  desire  to  rid  themselves  of. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  would  do  the  same  thing  abroad  if  you  had  the 
surplus  ? 


38  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  1— ACIDS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Absolutely;  and  I  make  no  argument  against  it. 
But  here  is  an  opportunity  for  us  to  get  additional  revenue  without 
charging  the  ultimate  consumer  more.  I  would  like  to  add  just  a 
word  or  two  about  things  in  which  we  are  only  very  slightly  inter- 
ested. You  have,  and  wisely,  I  believe,  decided  to  place  a  duty  on 
aniline  oil  and  salt.  We  are  interested  in  a  company  producing 
aniline  oil  and  salt  in  this  country. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  amount  of  production  of  those  things  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  our  maximum  production  in  this  country 
would  be  1,000  tons.  I  think  that  is  one-half  of  the  consumption  in 
this  country.  You  have,  I  believe,  placed  that  on  the  dutiable  list  at 
10  per  cent.  Whether  that  is  going  to  protect  a  very  young  infant 
which  is  starting,  is  something  I  do  not  know.  I  believe  a  larger  duty 
than  that  would  be  reasonable — 15  or  20  per  cent.  The  industry  was 
started  in  a  tune  when  there  was  no  protection. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Which  would  produce  tne  most,  15  or  20  per  cent? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  believe  you  would  get  all  the  revenue  you  charged, 
because  the  production  is  not  sufficient  to  meet  the  demand. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  did  you  start  that  industry  without  any  duty? 
Did  you  think  you  could  make  it  pay? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  There  are  a  great  many  experiments  that  we  try — 

Mr.  HILL.  Mr.  Emory  was  speaking  of  the  manufacture  of  oxalic 
acid  running  6  years  under  free  trade.  You  say  you  started  this 
industry  without  any  duty  on  it  at  all? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  you  think  it  ought  to  have  more  duty  than  the 
committee  has  given  it  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  agree  with  the  Congress  which  has  already 
decided  that  the  duty  on  that  for  revenue  purposes,  I  believe,  was 
wise. 

Mr.  HILL.  Did  you  start  it  for  the  purpose  of  using  the  by-prod- 
uct, or  with  the  idea  of  making  a  successful  business  investment  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  one  of  the  things  in  which  we  use  sulphuric 
and  nitric  acid,  a  thing  which  I  believe  we  must  encourage  in  this 
country,  the  use  of  the  growing  production  of  what  might  be  called 
basic  chemicals. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  did  not  start  it  as  an  altruistic  proposition? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  haven't  made  any  money. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  are  not  satisfied  with  your  experience? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  It  has  not  been  very  good. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  This  witness  has  made  no  request  for  protection. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  know  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  have  no  business  in  this  country  in  fine  chemicals 
that  can  compare  with  the  chemical  industry  abroad.  It  is  simply 
a  question  of  whether  it  is  not  wise  to  foster  the  growth  of  the  chem- 
ical industry  or  at  least  give  us  a  source  of  revenue.  I  believe  that 
our  business  is  going  to  grow  over  here,  whether  we  have  free  trade 
or  whether  we  do  not.  I  believe  that  we  are  going  ahead  in  this 
country,  but  I  think  there  are  certain  things  that  should  be  pro- 
tected and  that  certain  duties  should  be  levied.  It  seems  to  me  to 
l)e  a  question  so  important  that  one  man's  wisdom  is  not  sufficient  to 
cover  the  ground. 


SCHEDULE   A.  39 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  several  other  witnesses,  and  we  must 
adjourn  early  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  am  entirely  at  your  disposal. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  covered  the  ground  that  you  wish  to 
cover  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  have,  sir,  unless  you  would  like  to  ask  me  to  submit 
a  brief  later  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  be  very  glad  to  have  you  submit  a 
brief. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  intended  to  have  the  chairman  of  our  research 
department  to  do  that,  but  that  has  been  impossible  on  account  of 
his  illness. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  submit  your  brief  and  get  it  in  to-day, 
it  will  be  printed  in  the  hearings  on  the  chemical  schedule;  if  not, 
it  would  go  back  in  another  schedule,  where  it  would  not  be  so  much 
in  evidence. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Any  brief  that  I  would  submit  to-day  would  be  of 
no  very  great  aid  to  your  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  file  a  brief  at  any  time  before  the  hear- 
ings are  over,  at  the  end  of  the  month. 

Mr.  LONGWORTII.  Where  are  your  plants  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  have  them  all  over  the  country. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  have  a  number  of  them? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  about  25  of  them. 

At  a  later  date  the  witness  filed  the  following  statement  of  General 
Chemical  Co.  regarding  the  Underwood  bill  to  amend  the  Chemical 
Schedule  of  the  tariff  act. 

NEW  YORK,  JANUARY  27,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  In  accordance  with  your  request  to  our  vice  president,  Mr.  W.  H.  Nichols,  jr., 
at  the  hearing  of  7th  January  1913,  we  submit  a  few  criticisms  of  the  Underwood  bill. 
\Ve  are  of  the  opinion  that  no  great  injury  would  result  by  the  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ments to  the  duties  in  that  portion  of  Schedule  A  with  which  we  are  familiar,  and  we 
would  be  willing  to  accept  the  proposed  amendments  with  the  exception  of  four 
articles,  namely: 

"1.  Magnesium  sulphate:  Epsom  salt  and  kieserite. — Page]  11,  line  22,  erase  "one- 
tenth"  and  in  lieu  thereof  insert  "one-fifth."  Page  22,  between  lines  19  and  20  insert 
"88a  kieserite." 

Kieserite  contains  about  60  per  cent  sulphate  of  magnesia  in  an  impure  state,  which 
has  always  been  on  the  free  list  (paragraph  602  of  present  tariff  act);  its  only  use  is  as  a 
raw  material  for  Epsom  salt  and  for  which  it  is  the  only  commercial  raw  material;  it 
must  all  be  imported  since  this  country  has  no  deposits  thereof.  If  the  understanding 
be  correct  that,  in  general,  raw  materials  are  to  be  duty  free,  then  kieserite  should  be 
definitely  placed  on  the  free  list  in  some  such  manner  as  that  proposed;  the  bill,  as 
at  present  framed,  leaves  open  to  serious  discussion  whether  or  not  kieserite  is  dutiable 
under  paragraph  No.  45  of  H.  R.  20182. 

In  any  event,  we  believe  that  sulphate  of  magnesia  or  Epsom  salt  should  be  taxed 
as  heretofore,  namely,  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  plus  any  tax  that  may  be  assessed 
against  kieserite.  and  we  so  request,  the  reason  being  that  1  pound  of  kieserite  produces 
about  1  pound  of  Epsom  salt. 

In  this  connection  it  is  only  jiist  to  you  and  to  us  to  point  out  that  on  page  229  of 
report  No.  326  on  Schedule  A,  kieserite  is  not  mentioned  as  a  raw  material  for  Epsom 
salt;  the  statement  there  made  that  Epsom  salt  is  obtained  from  a  by-product  in  the 
making  of  liquid  carbonic  acid  was  true  some  years  ago,  but  no  longer  represents  the 
actual  state  of  affairs.  It  may  very  well  be  that  this  incorrect  statement  led  to  the 
omission  of  kieserite  from  the  free  list  of  H.  R.  20182. 


40  .  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGBAPH   1— ACIDS. 

2.  Sodium  sulphid. — Page  19,  line  25,  erase  "sulphid  of,  and."     Page  20,  line  1, 
before  "cyanide"  insert  "sulphid  of,  containing  not  more  than  35  per  cent  of  true 
anhydrous  sodium  sulphid,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound;  containing  more  than 
35  per  cent  of  true  anhydrous  sodium  sulphid,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound." 

In  the  manufacture  of  sulphid  of  soda  two  distinct  and  clearly  differentiated  com- 
mercial qualities  exist  and  are  so  recognized  and  so  treated  in  the  trade.  They  are 
known  as  "crystal"  and  "concentrated"  respectively.  "Concentrated"  contains 
rougly  twice  as  much  actual  active  material  as  "crystal;"  "crystal"  seldom,  if  ever, 
contains  more  than  35  per  cent  true  anhydrous  sulphid  of  soda,  whereas  "concentrated ' 
rarely  contains  less  than  60  per  cent  true  anhydrous  sulphid  of  soda.  "Concentrated  " 
can  and  does  therefore,  weight  for  weight,  perform  twice  the  work  of  "crystal;" 
"concentrated"  is  in  a  more  advanced  stage  of  manufacture  than  is  "crystal."  These 
iacts  are  our  reasons  for  suggesting  that  "concentrated"  should  bear  twice  the  duty 
imposed  on  "crystal."  We  are  convinced  therefore  that  for  purposes  of  fair  taxation 
ft  would  be  better  to  define  the  grades  of  sulphid  of  soda  by  their  actual  content  in 
anhydrous  sulphid,  and  suggest  that  the  two  classes  be  distinguished  by  drawing  a 
line  between  sulphids  containing  more  than  35  per  cent  and  those. containing  less  than 
35  per  cent.  It  would  seem  that  such  a  classification  would  be  better  than  "crystal" 
and  "concentrated." 

We  agree  to  the  50  per  cent  cut  in  duty  on  "crystal"  as  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182. 

3.  Acetic  acid. — Page  21,  line  4,  after  "pyroligenous"  insert  "containing  not  more 
than  65  per  cent  of  true  acetic  acid."     Page  2,  line  7,  before  "benzoic  "  insert  "acetic 
acid  containing  65  per  cent  or  more  of  true  acetic  acid,  2  cents  per  pound." 

In  the  chemical  manufacture  of  acetic  acid  there  are  at  present  several  processes  in 
use,  and  the  average  resulting  product  contains  about  65  per  cent  of  true  acetic  acid. 
In  order  to  produce  acids  of  higher  strength,  it  is  necessary  to  add  another  step  in  the 
manufacture.  Since  it  is  a  fair  general  statement  that  acetic  acid  of  more  than  65  per 
cent  strength  is  a  different  article  of  manufacture  from  acid  below  65  per  cent,  and  is  in 
a  more  advanced  stage,  and  since  the  actual  value  of  acetic  acid  is  greater  the  greater 
its  strength,  we  accept  the  placing  of  the  weaker  acid  on  the  free  list  and  ask  for  the 
retention  of  the  present  duty  rate  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  acid  of  a  strength  above  65 
per  cent. 

4.  Nitrate  of  soda.— Page  23,  between  lines  9  and  10,  insert  "95a  soda,  nitrate  of,  or 
cubic  nitrate." 

Nitrate  of  soda  is  now  on  the  free  list  (paragraph  677).  It  is  omitted  from  the  free 
list  in  H.  R.  20182  and  would  therefore  presumably  be  assessed  at  10  or  25  per  cent  duty 
according  to  the  classification  finally  adopted  for  it;  at  any  rate  its  position  now  is 
ambiguous.  Nitrate  of  soda  comes  exclusively  from  South  America,  the  United  States 
importing  between  400,000  and  500,000  tons  annually;  none  is  produced  in  this  country. 
About  40  per  cent  is  used  in  agriculture  as  fertilizer;  about  40  per  cent  is  used  in 
explosives;  about  15  per  cent  is  used  in  chemicals;  about  5  per  cent  is  used  in  miscel- 
laneous. 

It  is  essentially  a  raw  material  and  its  omission  from  the  free  list  must  be  an  over- 
sight. 

The  duty  on  many  items  in  the  chemical  schedule  might,  however,  we  believe,  be 
advantageously  retained  as  in  the  present  act,  or  even  raised,  without  reducing  impor- 
tations or  affecting  prices. 

In  the  United  States  the  chemical  industry  as  a  whole  is  not  evenly  developed.  The 
manufacture  of  fertilizers  is  its  largest  branch  and  is  absolutely  unprotected  by  any 
tariff.  In  the  manufacture  of  heavy  chemicals,  sulphuric  acid,  muriatic  acid,  and 
nitric  acid,  there  is  either  no  duty  at  all  or  it  is  a  noneft'ective  duty.  The  large  num- 
ber of  mineral  salts  made  from  these  acids  are  dutiable  and  furnish  some  revenue. 
They  are  subject  to  attack  from  Europe,  and  the  tariff  placed  upon  them  is  simply  a 
means  of  collecting  revenue  rather  than  in  any  sense  a  protective  measure. 

Coal-tar  dyes  and  medicines  are  other  branches  of  great  importance,  but  they  can 
hardly  bo  said  to  exist  in  the  United  States.  A  moderately  high  duty  on  these  prod- 
ucts would,  we  believe,  neither  rest  rid  the  importation  thereof  nor  seriously  affect 
the  selling  price  of  the  finished  produds  consuming  them.  Paragraphs  487  and  592 
of  the  pn-sent  free  list  might  safely  be  put  on  the  dutiable  list  at  a  duty  of  30  per  cent 
ad  valorem  or  even  higher,  and  paragraphs  536,  639,  and  491  might  be  raised  to  15  or 
20  per  cent,. 

The  census  bulletins  show  the  total  revenue  under  Schedule  A  in  1911  to  have  been 
4.0<;  per  cent  of  the  entire  revenue  collected  under  the  existing  act,  while  for  the  previ- 
ous 10  years  the  average  tariff  collected  from  Schedule  A  was  only  3.42  per  cent.  The 
average  rate  of  duty  on  all  of  the  schedules  is  41  per  cent  and  the  average  rate  of  duty 
on  Schedule  A  is  23  per  cent. 


SCHEDULE   A. 


41 


PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

A  study  of  the  appended  table  will  make  it  obvious  that  Schedule  A  has  never  been 
treated  as  a  source  of  revenue.  Consideration  from  this  point  of  view  may  well  result 
in  the  Government's  pursuing  a  diffenert  policy. 

The  chemicals  manufactured  by  this  company  on  which  a  duty  is  assessed,  are  as 
follows:  Sodium  hyposulphite,  sodium  sulphid  (crystal  and  concentrated),  sodium 
phosphate,  trisodium  phosphate,  sodium  sulphite  (crystal  and  anhydrous),  sodium 
silicate,  bichloride  of  tin,  tin  crystals,  alum  products. 

These  are  all  dependent  upon  cheap  sulphuric  acid,  and  when  Europe  is  permitted 
to  dump  its  biproduct  acid  in  this  country  in  the  form  of  such  salts,  it  simply  deprives 
the  United  States  of  an  outlet  for  its  own  acids.  If  these  importations  are  to  be  allowed 
then  we  strongly  recommend  the  Government's  collecting  a  revenue  thereon,  which 
it  can  do  without  the  least  risk  of  increasing  the  cost  of  the  articles  to  the  consumer. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

GENERAL  CHEMICAL  COMPANY, 
W.  H.  NICHOLS,  JR.,  Vice  President. 

Rough  analysis  of  Schedule  A  yielding  4  per  cent  of  total  tariff  revenue.  • 


Approximate 
valueUnited 
States  pro- 
duction. 

Value  of  imports. 

Duty  collected. 

Total. 

Per  cent. 

Total. 

Average 
rate. 

Heavy  chemicals  l  

$125,685.000 
49,212,000 
4,505,000 
2,267,000 
8,054,000 
63,537,000 
91,780,000 
124,889,000 

$12,226,385 
10,731,626 
33,738,548 
12,218,722 
8,726,995 
32,749,574 
829,141 
2,017,507 

10.8 
9.5 

29.8 
10.8 
7.7 
28.9 
0.7 
1.8 

$764,553 
422,294 
4,534,267 
1,911,446 
1,222,833 
3,126,281 
271,697 
618,403 

Per  cent. 
6.25 
3.93 
13.50 
15.64 
14.01 
9.54 
32.80 
36.50 

Alkalis  and  alkalis  salts  .                   . 

Medical  chemicals  and  fine  chemicals  

Dyes  and  coal-tar  products  

Extracts  

Oils.   ...                 .  .             

Soaps  

Paints  

Total  

469,929,000 

113,238,498 

100.0 

12,871,774 

1  Includes  $104,000,000,  fertilizers'. 

STATEMENT    OF    THE    COCHRANE    CHEMICAL    CO.,     BOSTON, 

MASS. 

BOSTON,  MASS..  January  2,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We,  the  Cochrane  Chemical  Co.,  of  Boston,  a  Massa- 
chusetts corporation,  beg  to  present  our  views  on  the  proposed  tariff 
reductions  in  Schedule  A. 

Our  principal  product  is  sulphuric  acid,  on  which  there  is  now  a 
duty  of  one-fourth  cent  per  pound.  We  admit  that  the  full  amount 
of  this  duty  may  not  be  necessary  in  the  case  of  competition  with  the 
European  nations,  where  freight  rates  form  a  natural  barrier.  In 
the  case  of  Canadian  competition,  however,  the  situation  would  be 
dangerous  to  the  American  sulphuric-acid  producer. 

Canada  is  rich  in  raw  material,  viz,  pyrites,  and  with  cheaper 
labor  can,  if  the  duty  is  removed,  flood  our  markets,  while  we  would 
be  unable  to  retaliate  so  long  as  she  retains  her  present  tariff,  forti- 
fied by  a  "dumping  clause."  Under  these  circumstances  our 
disadvantage  is  obvious. 

We  believe  it  would  be  only  fair  to  our  interests  to  have  a  similar 
dumping  clause,  especially  if  the  duty  should  be  entirely  removed. 


42  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

We  further  believe  that  it  is  not  only  unwise  but  impossible  to 
intelligently  draw  up  the  chemical  schedule  until  the  various  mineral 
schedules — which  deal  with  our  raw  materials,  such  as  lead,  zinc, 
bauxite,  etc. — have  been  settled.  As  the  manufacture  of  chemicals 
is  by  far  the  most  complicated  and  technical  of  any  of  the  industries 
of  the  countries,  it  i$  a  schedule  not  to  be  drawn  up  hurriedly. 

In  closing,  we  think  that  the  most  practical  policy  and  fairest  to 
all  concerned  would  be  somewhat  as  follows: 

First.  Eliminate  the  tariff  peaks  by  reducing  excessive  rates,  so 
that  the  advantages  of  protection  may  be  more  equitably  distributed 
among  its  beneficiaries. 

Second.  Abolish  tariff  on  raw  materials  essential  to  American 
industries  in  order  to  compensate  for  lower  rates  upon  the  manu- 
factured products. 

Third.  Reduce  duties  upon  manufactured  articles  gradually  by 
enforcing  as  far  as  possible  a  moderate  percentage  of  reduction  each 
year  for  a  period  of  years. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

COCHRANE  CHEMICAL  Co., 
LINDSLEY  LORING,  Treasurer. 

CITRIC  ACID. 

STATEMENT    OF    POWERS-WEIGHTMAN-ROSENGARTEN    CO., 
MANUFACTURING  CHEMISTS,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January  6.  1913. 
The  Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives, 
Washington,  D.  C.: 

Citric  acid  is  now  assessed  at  a  duty  of  7  cents  per  pound.  This 
duty,  which  is  a  trifle  less  than  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  should  be 
allowed  to  remain  undisturbed,  as  great  advantages  are  possessed  by 
the  foreign  makers  owing  to  cheaper  labor,  cheaper  apparatus,  and 
cheaper  reagents  which  enter  into  its  manufacture. 

This  article  is  made  from  citrate  of  lime,  which  is  imported  from 
Sicily  and  the  West  Indies,  and  also  from  lime  juice  obtained  from 
the  West  Indies. 

These  raw  materials,  citrate  of  lime  and  lime  juice,  should  remain 
upon  the  free  list.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world  which  imposes 
an  import  duty  on  either  of  them. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

POWEHS-WEIGHTMAN-ROSENGARTEN   CO., 

A.  G.  ROSENGARTEN,  Treasurer. 


SCHEDULE   A.  43 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES    PFIZER  &  CO.   (INC.),  NEW  YORK, 

N.  Y. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  0. 

DEAR  SIR:  Pursuant  to  your  notice  of  tariff  hearings,  1913,  dated 
December  11,  1912,  we  beg  to  submit  the  following.  The  para- 
graphs mentioned  below  refer  to  the  present  tariff  law: 

Paragraph  1.   Citric  acid. — Present  rate,  7  cents  per  pound. 

This  represents,  on  the  present  market  price  abroad,  less  than  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  we  think  is  little  enough  to  enable  the 
manufacturers  in  the  United  States  to  compete  with  the  lower  cost 
of  production  in  Europe.  Imports  into  the  United  States  of  foreign 
manufacture  are  constant,  and  at  present  rate,  therefore,  the  Gov- 
ernment obtains  a  revenue.  Under  the  Wilson  bill  this  article  was 
dutiable  at  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  We  suggest,  therefore,  that  the 
present  rate  of  duty  should  be  maintained. 

In  European  countries  combinations  and  agreements  to  maintain 
prices  are  not  only  permissible  but  encouraged  by  some  Govern- 
ments, as  is  well  known;  hence  if,  because  of  a  reduction  in  our 
tariff  rate,  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  found  it  unprofitable 
to  operate,  the  people  of  this  country  would  be  the  eventual  sufferers 
by  being  compelled  to  pay  much  higher  prices  because  of  control  of 
markets  in  Europe  beyond  the  reach  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 

Paragraph  613.  Lime,  citrate  of. — Now  on  the  free  list  of  the  pres- 
ent tariff. 

Paragraph  610.  Lemon  juice,  lime  juice. — Now  on  the  free  list  of 
the  present  tariff. 

These  are  the  raw  materials  for  the  manufacture  of  citric  acid.  In 
no  large  manufacturing  country  of  the  world  is  there  an  import  duty 
imposed  on  these  crude  materials.  The  greatest  country  of  produc- 
tion is  Sicily,  and  in  that  country  the  Italian  Government  has  estab- 
lished a  monopoly,  controlling  prices  to  be  paid  by  buyers. 

We  strongly  recommend  that  lime,  citrate  of;  lemon  juice;  and 
lime  juice  be  retained  upon  the  free  list.  If  for  any  reason,  however, 
in  the  wisdom  of  your  committee,  it  is  deemed  desirable  to  effect  a 
tariff  on  these  articles,  then  we  trust  that  an  equivalent  advance  on 
the  tariff  on  citric  acid  be  effected,  bearing  in  mind  always  that  it 
takes  from  1§  to  If  pounds  of  citrate  of  lime  to  manufacture  1  pound 
of  citric  acid. 

Paragraph  1 .  Tartaric  acid. — Present  rate,  5  cents  per  pound.  This 
rate  has  increased  imports  very  largely  to  the  detriment,  proportion- 
ately, of  the  manufacturers  in  the  United  States.  The  imports  in 
1907  were  11,573  pounds,  and  increased  constantly  until  in  1911  they 
were  331,538  pounds. 

Crude  argols  is  the  raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of  this  article. 

European  makers  of  tartaric  acid  operate  by  using  the  lowest  grade 
of  wine  lees  and  the  refuse  which  they  get  from  the  wine  presses. 
American  manufacturers  can  not  use  this  low-grade  stuff  because  of 
added  freight  costs  from  Europe  on  about  80  per  cent  waste  material 
and  because  of  labor  costs  being  at  least  three  times  greater  in  the 


44  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

United  States  than  in  Europe.  Further,  the  makers  in  the  United 
States  must  pay  duty  on  the  crude  material  used,  while  the  Europeans 
have  it  directly  at  their  doors  free  of  any  extra  cost.  Manufacturers 
in  the  United  States  also  pay  from  50  to  100  per  cent  more  for  other 
raw  materials  used  in  the  manufacture  of  tartaric  acid,  as  well  as 
everything  that  goes  into  construction  of  plant  and  operation  of  same. 
In  and  about  our  factory  we  employ  labor  in  the  form  of  carpenters, 
coppersmiths,  tinsmiths,  machinists,  masons,  and  ordinary  workmen, 
as  well  as  high-priced  chemists,  clerks,  etc.,  to  all  of  whom  we  pay 
wages  far  in  excess  of  anything  paid  in  other  countries. 

The  advantages  possessed  by  the  European  makers  over  the  manu- 
facturers in  the  United  States  in  practically  everything  that  goes  to 
make  up  the  cost  of  producing  this  article  is  not  offset  by  a  duty  of  5 
cents  per  pound.  To  make  a  relative  and  proper  proportion  of  rates, 
as  compared  to  cream  of  tartar  mentioned  below,  the  duty  upon  tar- 
taric acid  should  be  6J  cents  per  pound. 

Paragraph  6.  Cream  tartar. — Present  rate,  5  cents  per  pound. 
What  we  have  said  above  with  regard  to  tartaric  acid  applies  with 
equal  force  to  cream  tartar.  We  think  if  the  duty  on  crude  argols  is 
maintained  at  5  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  at  present,  that  the  rate  upon 
cream  tartar  should  remain  at  5  cents  per  pound. 

The  chemical  ratio  between  tartaric  acid  and  cream  tartar  is  as  1  is 
to  1|,  1  part  of  tartaric  acid  being  equal  to  1^  parts  of  cream  tartar. 

Paragraph  6.  Tartrate  of  soda  arid  potash  or  Rochelle  salts. — Present 
rate,  3  cents  per  pound. 

This  rate  was  established  under  the  law  of  1909,  and  the  imports 
during  the  fiscal  year  of  1909  immediately  increased  to  40,123  pounds, 
as  compared  to  the  import  in  1908  of  1,722  pounds.  Imports  have 
constantly  increased  since  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1909,  so  that 
during  the  fiscal  year  1911,  78,257  pounds  were  imported,  and,  as  far 
as  we  have  been  able  to  learn,  imports  during  the  fiscal  year  1912  will 
exceed  at  least  125,000  pounds,  clearly  demonstrating  that  the  law 
of  1909,  establishing  a  rate  of  3  cents  per  pound,  is  as  low  as  it  should  be. 

The  crude  material  for  this  article  is  crude  argols,  and  what  we  have 
said  above  with  regard  to  tartaric  acid  and  cream  tartar  applies  with 
equal  force  to  this  article. 

Paragraph  6.  Argols  or  crude  tartar,  or  wine  lees,  crude. — Present 
rate,  5  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

About  95  per  cent  of  all  the  consumption  in  the  United  States  is 
imported  from  European  centers. 

These  articles  are  the  crude  material  for  the  manufacture  of  cream 
tartar,  tartaric  acid,  and  Rochelle  salts.  If  in  the  wisdom  of  your 
committee  this  crude  material  is  placed  upon  the  free  list,  then  a 
proportionate  reduction  could  be  consistently  made  in  the  above- 
mentioned  rates  for  the  products.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  any  advance 
in  the  tariff  rates  on  this  crude  material  is  deemed  wise,  then  a  pro- 
portionate increase  should  be  made  in  the  rates  of  duty  for  the  above- 
mentioned  products. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

CHARLES  PFIZER  &  Co.  (!NC.). 
FRANKLIN  BLACK,  Secretary. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6,  1913. 


SCHEDULE   A.  45 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 
TARTARIC  ACID. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  HARSHAW  FULLER  &  GOODWIN  CO.,  CLEVE- 
LAND, OHIO. 

JANUARY  6,  T913. 

SIR:  Paragraph  1  provides  for  a  duty  on  tartaric  acid  of  5  cents  per 
pound. 

Paragraph  6  provides  for  a  duty  on  argois  or  crude  tartar  or  wine 
lees,  crude,  5  per  cent  ad  valorem;  also  cream  of  tartar  and  patent 
tartar,  5  cents  per  pound. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  no  change  be  made  in  the  duties  on  these 
articles. 

On  April  1,  1911.  Mr.  E.  Fabre,  who  was  for  15  years  superintendent 
of  the  largest  factory  in  Europe,  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  cream 
of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid,  entered  our  employ  to  superintend  the 
building,  equipping,  and  operation  of  a  plant  for  the  manufacture  of 
these  products,  in  connection  with  our  chemical  works  located  at 
E^ria,  Ohio.  The  plant  was  completed  in  August,  1912,  and  has 
been  in  operation  since.  While  we  nave  not  been  long  enough  in  the 
business  to  have  full  information  as  to  the  cost  of  manufacturing  and 
distributing  these  goods,  we  have  learned  enough  to  know  that  if  any 
material  reduction  is  made  in  the  tariff  we  can  buy  them  cheaper 
abroad  than  we  can  produce  them  here.  Through  Mr.  Fabre  we  have 
complete  information  as  to  manufacturing  conditions  in  France. 

Our  factory  was  built  by  American  workmen  receiving  the  American 
scale  of  wages.  It  is  equipped  entirely  with  American-made  machin- 
ery. We  are  advised  by  our  superintendent  that  the  cost  of  building 
and  equipping  our  factory  was  almost  double  that  of  a  similar  plant 
in  France. 

Our  minimum  wage  is  $2  per  day,  and  the  average  wage  paid  is 
$2.80  per  day. 

In  the  French  factory,  of  which  our  superintendent  had  charge,  the 
minimum  wage  paid  was  3J  francs  per  day;  the  average  was  4  francs, 
or  a  little  less  than  80  cents  per  day  American  money.  In  other  words, 
the  average  daily  wage  in  the  French  factory  is  less  than  one-third  of 
the  average  wage  in  our  factory. 

The  raw  material  used  by  us  is  obtained  almost  entirely  from 
France,  Italy,  and  other  wine  countries  of  southern  Europe,  as  our 
own  country  produces  only  about  2  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  which 
it  consumes.  The  majority  of  the  crop  is  marketed  during  three  or 
four  months  of  the  year,  and  this,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  we  are 
so  far  from  the  source  of  supply,  compels  us  to  keep  invested  large 
sums  of  money  in  stocks  of  raw  materials. 

We  pay  freight  on  this  raw  material  from  Europe  to  Elyria,  Ohio, 
not  only  on  the  goods  which  can  be  used,  but  on  impurities  contained 
in  them,  which  amount  to  from  30  to  50  per  cent  of  the  total  bulk, 
and  have  no  value  as  a  by-product.  The  foreign  factories,  which  are 
close  to  the  supply  of  raw  material,  are  able  to  obtain  it  as  required, 
and  do  not  have  to  invest  large  sums  in  supplies.  In  addition,  they 
can  obtain  at  low  prices  goods  which  are  wet  or  otherwise  damaged, 
and  consequently  not  in  fit  condition  to  transport  a  long  distance. 


46  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

Moreover,  the  cost  of  packages,  transportation  charges,  and  general 
expenses  of  doing  business  are  much  greater  in  this  country  than 
abroad. 

Briefly,  we  have  tried  to  give  some  of  the  items  that  make  up  the 
difference  in  the  cost  of  manufacturing  these  products  in  this  country 
and  in  foreign  countries,  and  if  we  are  to  continue  this  manufacture 
of  them  there  must  be  a  sufficient  tariff  to  cover  the  difference.  The 
present  tariff  barely  does  this.  We  would  not  object  to  a  reduction 
on  the  present  tariff  on  the  finished  goods,  provided  a  corresponding 
reduction  were  made  on  the  raw  materials,  but  the  parity  between  the 
two  must  be  maintained.  If  changes  are  made  that  prevent  us  from 
operating  our  factory  the  loss  will  fall  not  only  upon  ourselves  and  the 
men  we  employ  directly,  but  in  more  or  less  degree  upon  the  entire 
community,  as  the  well-being  of  the  people  of  a  manufacturing  town 
depends  upon  the  constant  operation  of  its  factories. 

We  are  not  connected  in  any  way  with  other  manufacturers  of  these 
.products  in  this  country,  and  ask  for  no  protection  against  manufac- 
turers who  are  working  under  the  same  conditions  as  ourselves,  but 
we  do  feel  that  we  should  be  permitted  to  operate  this  factory  and 
should  receive  the  necessary  protection  to  enable  us  to  do  so  and  sell 
our  goods  in  this  country  in  competition  with  foreign  manufacturers 
who  operate  under  entirely  different  labor  and  living  conditions. 
Respectfully, 

RALPH  L.  FULLEKV  Secretary. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  0. 

TANNIC  ACID. 

BRIEF    OF    MALLINCKRODT    CHEMICAL   WORKS    ET   AL.,    RE- 
GARDING MEDICINAL  AND  OTHER  FINE  CHEMICALS. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Pursuant  to  your  notice  of  tariff  hearings,  1913,  dated 
December  11,  1912,  we  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

Our  business  is  confined  largely  to  the  manufacture  of  medicinal 
chemicals.  Our  products  are  mostly  those  prescribed  by  the  United 
States  Pharmacopoeia.  Our  processes  are  not  secret  but  generally 
known,  and  none  of  our  articles  are  patented.  We  represent  a  dis- 
tinct branch  of  the  chemical  industry  which,  because  of  special 
features,  should  be  considered  separately  and  apart  from  the  indus- 
tries manufacturing  chemicals  for  technical  purposes  in  very  large 
quantities  with  the  employment  of  machinery  and  in  which  labor  is  a 
small  part  of  the  cost  and  in  which  few  expert  chemists  are  required. 

In  our  industry,  on  the  other  hand,  the  expense  of  labor  is  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  the  cost  and  we  are  unable  to  employ  machinery 
except  to  a  very  limited  extent.  We  pay  our  workmen  from  $2  to  $3 
per  day.  In  Germany  similar  workmen  receive  from  3  to  5  marks 
per  day,  equal  to,  say,  SO. 72  to  SI. 20  per  day.  We  are  somewhat 


SCHEDULE  A.  47 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

familiar  with  the  conditions  that  obtain  in  the  German  factories  in 
our  line  and  from  our  own  observations  are  convinced  that  the  aver- 
age German  workman,  at  the  lower  wages,  is  more  intelligent,  more 
careful  and  efficient,  and  more  amenable  to  discipline  than  the 
American  workman.  We  attribute  this  largely  to  the  training  in  the 
German  industrial  schools  and  German  military  system. 

We  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

The  paragraphs  mentioned  below  indicate  the  paragraphs  in  the 
present  tariff  law. 

PARAGRAPH    1. 

Tannic  acid  or  tannin. — Present  rate,  35  cents  per  pound.  Since 
this  rate  was  enacted,  conditions  in  this  country  have  changed  hi 
the  matter  of  solvents  used,  etc.,  and  the  duty  could  be  reduced. 
We  suggest  that  the  phraseology  with  respect  to  this  article  in  para- 
graph 1  read  as  follows  : 

1 '  Tannic  acid  or  tannin,  over  70  per  cent,  25  cents  per  pound ;  less 
than  70  per  cent,  10  cents  per  pound. " 

This  new  rate  would  not  prohibit  imports  but  probably  would  cause 
an  increase  of  imports. 

Gallic  acid. — The  present  rate,  8  cents  per  pound.  Taking  the 
present  lowest  foreign  cost  at  30  cents  per  pound,  the  rate  of  8  cents 
is  equivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  26£  per  cent.  The  Payne  bill 
reduced  the  duty  25  per  cent,  from  10  cents  to  8  cents.  The  present 
duty  of  8  cents  per  pound  is  no  more  than  sufficient  to  offset  the  differ- 
ence in  cost  of  manufacture. 

We  suggest  that  this  article  be  included  in  the  general  provision 
of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty. 

All  other  acids  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section:  Present 
rate  of  duty,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  We  think  this  rate  should  be 
maintained  so  as  to  enable  manufacturers  in  this  country  to  exist  in 
competition  with  foreign  producers  who  have  all  the  advantages  of 
cheap  labor,  cheap  scientific  help,  and  cheap  crude  material  to  assist 
them.  In  connection  with  this  clause  we  especially  desire  to  mention — 

Pyrogallic  acid. — The  manufacture  of  this  article  has  only  recently 
been  successfully  established  in  this  country,  after  a  number  of  years 
of  experimentation.  The  effect  has  already  been  to  reduce  prices. 
A  considerable  sum  has  been  spent  by  domestic  manufacturers  in 
establishing  the  manufacture  and  investment  in  apparatus  and  plant. 

The  duty  of  25  per  cent  declared  on  this  article  is  not  sufficient  to 
offset  the  handicap  under  which  American  manufacturers  are  labor- 
ing, and  should  be  retained. 

PARAGRAPH    3. 

Alkalies,  alkaloids,  etc. — Present  duty  25  per  cent. 

This  clause  covers  a  multitude  of  medicinal  chemicals  produced 
not  only  by  us  but  by  numerous  other  small  manufacturers.  Medici- 
nal chemicals  are  mostly  made  in  small  quantities,  many  of  them  in 
lots  of  only  a  few  pounds  or  ounces.  The  operations  have  to  be  either 
conducted  by  or  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  expert  experi- 
enced chemists.  We  submit  that  in  medicinal  chemicals  purity  is  of 


48  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    1— ACIDS. 

first  importance.  A  small  increase  in  the  cost  of  medicinal  chemicals 
is  of  no  importance  to  the  ultimate  consumers,  the  sick.  Medicinal 
chemicals  are  dispensed  to  the  public  through  the  pharmacists  who 
charge  mainly  for  their  professional  knowledge  and  skill,  and  whether 
the  ingredients  cost  2  or  5  or  10  cents  or  more,  the  prices  of  the  pre- 
scriptions are  made  25,  50,  75  cents,  or  $1.  The  original  cost,  there- 
fore, bears  but  little  relation  to  the  price  paid  by  the  ultimate  con- 
sumer. A  large  amount  of  capital  is  invested  in  this  industry  and  a 
large  number  of  skilled  workmen  and  chemists  are  employed. 

The  present  duty  is,  in  our  opinion,  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  high 
cost  of  manufacture  in  this  country,  and  the  importation  of  medicinal 
and  other  pure  chemicals  has  been  steadily  increasing.  Our  industry 
is,  therefore,  not  in  a  strong  position  to  meet  foreign  competition, 
even  under  present  rates.  That  the  rate  is  in  no  sense  prohibitive 
is  shown  by  the  value  of  the  imports,  which  in  1911  amounted  to 
$3,338,419  and  yielded  revenue  amounting  to  $834,494. 

One  of  the  articles  affected  by  this  paragraph  is: 

Caffeine. — This  product  is  now  imported  quite  largely  into  the 
United  States  in  competition  with  home  m  anuf  actures,  and  there  should 
be  no  change,  therefore,  in  the  present  rate,  provided  tea  siftings — the 
raw  material— remain  on  the  free  list.  With  the  present  rate  of  25  per 
cent  on  the  foreign  market  price  of  caffeine — equal  to  about  76  cents 
per  pound — American  manufacturers  can  and  do  compete.  If, 
however,  it  should  be  concluded  to  put  a  duty  on  tea  siftings,  then  a 
corresponding  increase  of  duty  should  be  made  on  caffeine. 

We  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  error  in  the  caucus  print  of 
H.  R.  20182,  in  which  appears  the  average  unit  value  of  caffeine 
as  SI. 66  per  pound,  1910,  and  $1.82  per  pound,  1911,  whereas  the 
correct  value  is  $3.06  per  pound,  as  shown  in  the  letter  from  the 
Treasury  Department  under  date  of  April  24,  1912. 

PARAGRAPH    14. 

Chloroform. — Present  rate  of  duty,  10  cents  per  pound.  Crude 
materials  for  the  manufacture  of  this  article  are  acetone,  bleaching 
powder,  and  carbon  tetrachloride,  all  of  which  are  dutiable  when 
imported  into  this  country,  and  all  of  which  the  foreign  manufacturers 
obtain  without  the  payment  of  duty. 

We  believe  that  this  rate  of  duty  should  be  maintained. 

PARAGRAPH    15. 

All  other  products  or  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not  colors  or  dyes 
and  not  medicinal,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  present 
rate  of  duty.  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  strongly  urge  that  if  a  change  should  be  made  in  this  section  of 
the  paragraph  the  words  ''and  not  medicinal"  be  retained,  for  the 
reason  that  this  wording  covers  a  number  of  intermediate  coal-tar 
products  used  bv  home  manufacturers  as  raw  materials  in  the  manu- 
facture of  medicinal  products.  The  omission  of  this  provision  is 
likely  to  cause  confusion,  trouble,  and  expense  in  the  classification  of 
such  intermediate  products. 


SCHEDULE   A.  49 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 
PARAGRAPH   21. 

Ethers,  sulphuric. — Present  rate,  8  cents  per  pound. 

Conditions  surrounding  the  manufacture  of  this  article  are  now 
such  that  we  as  manufacturers  of  this  article  recommend  a  reduction 
to  4  cents  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH    27. 

Iodine  resublimed. — Present  rate  of  duty,  20  cents  per  pound.  This 
rate  of  duty  represents  only  about  7  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  we  think 
is  as  low  as  it  should  be.  Crude  iodine  is  the  crude  material  for  the 
manufacture  of  this  article,  and  is  at  present  on  the  free  list.  If  any 
duty  is  established  upon  crude  iodine,  then  a  proportionate  increase  of 
duty  should  be  made  upon  the  resublimed  article. 

PARAGRAPH   28. 

lodqform. — Present  duty,  75  cents  per  pound. 

Crude  iodine  is  the  crude  material  for  this  article.  If  crude  iodine 
is  allowed  to  remain  upon  the  free  list,  where  it  is  at  present,  then  the 
duty  on  iodoform,  we  suggest,  can  be  established  at  the  minimum  rate 
of  50  cents  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH    31. 

Magnesia,  calcined  medicinal. — Present  duty,  7  cents  a  pound. 

In  1911,  65,739  pounds  were  imported  into  this  country,  yielding  a 
duty  amounting  to  $4,598.  The  above  imported  quantity  is  probably 
more  than  is  altogether  manufactured  in  this  country. 

PARAGRAPH    41. 

Opium. — Crude  or  unmanufactured,  and  not  adulterated,  contain- 
ing 9  per  cent  and  over  of  morphia,  $1.50  per  pound;  opium  of  the 
same  composition  dried,  powdered,  or  otherwise  advanced  beyond  the 
condition  of  crude  or  unmanufactured,  $2  per  pound ;  morphia  or  mor- 
phine, sulphate  of,  and  all  alkaloids  of  opium  and  salts  and  esters 
thereof,  $1.50  per  ounce;  cocaine,  ecgonine,  and  all  salts  and  deriva- 
tives of  the  same,  $1.50  per  ounce;  coca  leaves,  5  cents  per  pound. 

We  believe  that  the  present  duties  on  opium  and  morphine  are  in 
proper  relative  proportion  and  should  remain  unchanged.  We  be- 
lieve that  any  considerable  further  advance  of  duties  would  induce 
extensive  smuggling  and  an  evasion  of  duty,  as  has  been  the  experi- 
ence in  the  past  when  very  excessive  rates  have  been  imposed.  We 
believe,  too,  that  the  present  duties  on  coca  leaves,  cocaine  alkaloid 
and  salts  are  sufficiently  high  and  on  an  equitable  basis  and  should 
not  be  changed.  If,  however,  it  is  concluded,  as  was  proposed  in 
H.  R.  20182,  to  advance  the  duty  on  coca  leaves  100  per  cent,  from  5 
cents  per  pound  to  10  cents  per  pound,  the  advance  on  cocaine  and 
salts  should  not  be  less  than  75  cents,  making  the  specific  duty  $2.25 
per  ounce.  It  requires  10  pounds  or  more,  according  to  the  quality 
of  coca  leaves,  to  make  1  ounce  of  cocaine  hydrochloride.  Making  the 
same  rate  of  advance  on  both  leaves,  alkaloid,  and  salts  would 
therefore  really  be  reducing  the  duty  on  the  latter. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 4 


50 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 
PARAGRAPH    62. 

Hydriodate,  iodide,  and  iodate  of  potash. — Present  rate  of  duty,  25 
cents  per  pound. 

This  is  equivalent  to  less  than  10  per  cent  on  the  present  import  costs. 
Crude  iodine  is  the  crude  material  for  the  manufacture  of  this  article, 
which  is  at  present  on  the  free  list.  If  any  duty  is  established  upon 
crude  iodine,  then  a  proportionate  increase  of  duty  should  be  made 
upon  the  articles  in  this  paragraph.  These  articles  contain  over  77 
per  cent  of  iodine. 

PARAGRAPH    65. 

(No.  1.)  Medicinal  preparations  containing  alcohol,  or  hi  the  prepa- 
ration of  which  alcohol  is  used,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  sec- 
tion, 55  cents  per  pound,  but  in  no  case  shall  the  same  pay  less  than  25 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Should  any  change  be  made  in  this  paragraph,  we  strongly  recom- 
mend that  this  section  of  the  paragraph  be  retained  as  it  now  reads. 
In  the  manufacture  of  many  articles  covered  by  this  section,  alcohol, 
being  the  chief  material,  is  either  decomposed  or  lost  in  the  process  of 
manufacture,  and  therefore  does  not  appear  in  the  finished  product. 
Any  change  in  the  above  wording  would  therefore  be  likely  to  cause 
confusion  and  enable  the  entering  of  such  articles  under  other  classifica- 
tions with  a  consequent  loss  of  revenue  to  the  Government.  The 
imports  under  this  paragraph  paying  the  specific  rate  of  55  cents  per 
pound  are  apparently  on  the  increase,  as  shown  in  the  following  tabu- 
lations : 


From  Report  No.  326  (p.  272). 

From  Report  No.  320  (p.  63). 

1890 

1890 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1911 

Pounds  

41,312 

$7,  274 

50,208 
$39,583 

147,112 
$133,994 

147,447 
$113,534 

171,342 
$152,  B59 

157,  713 
$138,583 

Value  

(No.  2.)  Calomel ,  corrosive  sublimate,  and  other  mercurial  medicinal 
preparations,  present  rate  of  duty,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  a  duty  on  mercury,  which  is  the  crude 
material  for  the  manufacture  of  these  articles,  of  7  cents  per  pound. 
As  these  preparations  contain  about  SO  to  85  per  cent  of  mercury,  the 
actual  tariff  afforded  is  equivalent  to  only  about  20  per  cent.  We 
think  therefore  that  this  rate  of  duty  should  continue.  If  it  is  deemed 
wise  to  reduce  the  duty  upon  the  metal  mercury,  then  a  propor- 
tionate reduction  could  be  made  in  these  preparations.  Imports  of 
these  preparations  have  been  constantly  increasing,  notwithstanding 
the  above-mentioned  duty,  s  )  that  while  the  imports  in  the  year  of 
1900  were  16. 047  pounds  the  imports  during  the  year  1912,  in  so  far 
as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  far  exceed  the  rate  of  100,000  pounds 
per  annum.  We  would  suggest  that  this  part  of  the  paragraph  be 
made  to  read  as  follows: 

"Calomel,  corrosive  sublimate,  red  precipitate,  and  all  mercurial 
medicinal  preparations,  35  per  cent." 


SCHEDULE   A.  51 

PARAGBAPH   1— ACIDS. 
PARAGRAPH   80. 

Strychnia  or  strychnine  and  all  salts  thereof. — Present  rate  of  duty, 
15  cents  per  ounce. 

The  crude  material  for  the  preparation  of  this  article  is  nux  vomica, 
which  contains  a  very  small  percentage  of  strychnine  (less  than  an 
average  of  1^  per  cent).  The  process  of  extraction  from  nux  vomica 
is  a  highly  scientific  and  laborious  one,  involving  the  cost  of  much 
labor  and  high-cost  solvents.  We  think  the  present  rate  of  duty 
should  be  maintained,  which  is  little  enough  to  have  the  industry 
prosper  in  this  country. 

PARAGRAPH   83. 

Vanillin. — Present  rate  of  duty,  20  cents  per  ounce. 

This  is  a  synthetic  chemical  product  for  which  cloves  is  the  raw 
material,  and  until  about  15  years  ago  sold  in  the  United  States  by 
European  manufacturers  at  $5  per  ounce.  It  is  now  selling  at  32  to 
35  cents  per  ounce,  due  to  home  competition.  The  rate  of  duty  was 
80  cents  per  ounce  until  1909,  when  it  was  reduced  to  20  cents  per 
ounce,  the  rate  now  ruling.  The  manufacture  of  this  product 
requires  a  large  investment  for  the  quantity  manufactured.  Its 
process  of  manufacture  is  very  complicated  and  requires  besides 
competent  chemists  a  number  of  dutiable  chemical  products  for  its 
manufacture  in  addition  to  the  raw  material — cloves.  The  present 
rate  of  20  cents  per  ounce  is  none  too  high  with  cloves,  the  raw 
material,  on  the  tree  list.  If  cloves  should  be  made  dutiable,  the 
rate  on  vanillin  should  be  proportionally  higher. 

PARAGRAPH   482. 

(No.  1.)  Phosphoric  acid,  now  free  and  yielding  no  revenue. 

There  are  two  grades  of  phosphoric  acid  on  the  market;  one  the 
pure  acid  made  from  phosphorus  and  the  technical  acid  made  from 
bones  or  phosphate  rock.  The  foreign  price  of  pure  phosphoric  acid 
from  phosphorus  is  fixed  by  agreement  among  European  manufac- 
turers who  work  together  under  a  combination.  In  order  to  en- 
courage the  manufacture  of  phosphoric  acid  in  this  country  we  think 
the  duty  should  be  made  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Pure  phosphoric 
acid  is  produced  in  a  diluted  state  by  burning  phosphorus  in  large 
chambers  constructed  of  sheet  lead,  which  are  very  expensive,  and 
owing  to  the  destructive  nature  of  the  acid  require  frequent  repairs 
and  have  to  be  entirely  replaced  within  a  few  years.  Large  quanti- 
ties of  porcelain  and  earthenware  are  required,  all  of  which  have  to  be 
imported,  as  none  of  the  kind  is  made  in  this  country.  All  of  the 
materials  and  apparatus  required  in  the  manufacture  of  the  pure 
phosphoric  acid  now  pay  a  very  heavy  duty.  The  process  of  manu- 
facture is  a  difficult  and  more  or  less  dangerous  one,  requiring  skilled 
labor  and  very  careful  supervision  by  expert  chemists.  The  wages  of 
laborers  and  salaries  of  chemists  paid  by  American  manufacturers 
average  at  least  double  those  paid  by  foreign  concerns.  Under  H.  li. 
20182  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound,  equivalent  to  10  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  was  proposed,  but  this  duty  is  not  sufficient  to  offset  the 


52  TABTFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

increased  cost  of  manufacture  in  this  country.     We  believe  that  a 
duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  pure  phosphoric  acid,  while  yielding 
a  revenue  to  the  Government,  would  encourage  the  manufacture  in 
this  country  without  materially  increasing  the  cost  to  the  consumer. 
We  therefore  suggest  the  following  change  in  the  schedule: 
"Pure  phosphoric  acid  made  from  phosphorus,  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem;  phosphoric  acid  technical,  free." 
(No.  2.)  Phthalic  acid,  now  on  the  free  list. 

Phthalic  acid  should  be  retained  in  the  free  list,  as  more  than  60 
per  cent  of  the  total  quantity  imported  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
the  medicinal  product,  phenolphthalein.  If  phthalic  acid  be  put  in 
the  dutiable  list  at  the  rate  of  5  cents  per  pound,  as  proposed  in  H.  R. 
20182,  then  phenolphthalein  should  be  specially  provided  for  at  the 
specific  rate  of  55  cents  per  pound.  Phenolphthalein  up  to  three 
years  ago  was  manufactured  exclusively  in  Europe  and  sold  in  this 
country  at  $2.15  to  $2.75  per  pound  in  a  wholesale  way.  It  is  now 
made  by  home  manufacturers,  with  the  result  that  the  wholesale  price 
is  now  $1.20  to  $1.25  per  pound. 

Germany,  France,  Italy,  Russia,  Canada,  Japan,  and  other  coun- 
tries are  following  the  principles  of  free  raw  materials  and  are  effecting 
duties  011  manufactured  products  more  and  more.  In  aU  of  the  above- 
mentioned  countries  combinations,  agreements,  and  conventions  are 
legally  permitted  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  prices  and  effecting 
other  controls  of  trade  situations  that  under  our  Sherman  antitrust 
law  are  not  permitted,  and  therefore  manufacturers  in  the  United 
States  are  not  enabled  to  effect  trade  agreements  that  establish  their 
control  of  the  situation  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can  afford  to  ex- 
port at  cost  or  below  cost,  so  as  to  compete  successfully  with  foreign 
manufacturers,  by  dumping  surpluses  of  their  products  abroad  in 
competition  witli  the  foreign  manufacturers.  Unless  adequate  duties 
arc  maintained  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  enabling 
manufacturers  in  this  country  to  sustain  themselves,  foreign  manu- 
facturers certainly  will  flood  the  market  of  the  United  States  with 
goods  at  prices  which  will  ultimately  eliminate  the  manufacture  of 
many  products  in  the  United  States.  "A  dumping  clause"  might 
advantageously  be  introduced  in  the  tariff  law  of  the  United  States 
similar  to  that  effected  by  the  Canadian  Government,  which  might 
restrain  the  foreign  manufacturers  from  dumping  goods  into  the 
United  States  at  or  below  cost  with  the  object  of  driving  manufac- 
turers of  the  United  States  out  of  business  and  then  controlling  the 
situation  themselves. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works,  Edw.  Mallinckrodt,  presi- 
dent; Schaefer  Alkaloid  Works,  O.  Schaefer,  presi- 
dent; Powers-Wcightman-Rosengarten  Co.,  A.  G. 
Rosengarten,  treasurer;  Monsanto  Chemical  Works, 
Jno.  F.  Queeny,  president;  Charles  Pfizer  &  Co. 
(Inc.),  John  Anderson,  treasurer;  New  York  Quinine 
&  Chemical  Works  (Ltd.).  Donald  McKenon;  Stand- 
ard Essence  Co.,  E.  W.  Preston,  secretary  and 
treasurer. 
JANUARY  6,  1913. 


SCHEDULE  A.  58 

PABAQRAPH   1— ACIDS. 
BRIEF  OF  THE  GEIGY-TER  MEER  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4, 1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

United  States  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  We  beg  herewith  to  respectfully  call  your  attention  to 
the  subject  of  tannic  acid  and  nutgall  extracts,  with  a  view  of  having 
these  two  products  properly  classified  in  any  new  tariff  bill  which 
may  be  drawn  for  consideration  of  the  new  Congress  soon  to  meet. 

We  have  carefully  read  the  statement  of  Messrs.  Zinsser  &  Co., 
dated  March  22,  1912,  and  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Boies  Penrose, 
chairman  Finance  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate,  but  would 
point  out  that  the  argument  of  these  gentlemen  seems  one-sided  and 
refers  only  to  tannic  acid  and  nutgall  extracts  prepared  by  means 
of  alcohol  and  of  ether. 

Our  factory  in  Basel,  Switzerland,  the  aniline  color  and  extract 
works,  formerly  John  R.  Geigy,  are  large  manufacturers  of  both 
products,  but  in  their  process  neither  alcohol  nor  ether  are  used  as 
solvents,  only  water,  and  we  consider  that  products  produced  by 
these  means  should  be  specifically  provided  for,  in  distinction  to 
tannic  acid  and  nutgaU  extracts  manufactured  by  means  of  alcohol 
and  of  ether  and  at  a  lower  rate  of  duty  than  such.  The  existing 
tariff  places  a  prohibitive  duty  on  tannic  acid  of  35  cents  per  pound, 
in  consequence  of  which  the  American  manufacturers  of  this  article 
have  for  years  had  a  clear  field  for  their  product.  A  competition 
with  the  foreign  article  was  impossible  owing  to  the  aforesaid  pro- 
hibitive duty.  We  beg,  therefore,  to  indorse  fully  the  rate  of  duty  of 
4  cents  per  pound  on  tannic  acid  (par.  1,  H.  R.  20182)  and  of  10  per 
cent  ad  valorem  on  nutgall  extracts  (par.  31  same  bill),  as  proposed, 
provided  the  same  are  produced  without  the  use  of  either  alcohol  or 
ether  as  solvents.  For  products  made  with  alcohol  and  of  ether  a 
somewhat  higher  duty  would  be  justified. 

To  the  best  of  our  knowledge  and  belief  the  American  manufac- 
turers are  making  only  alcohol  or  ether  tannic  acids  and  nutgall 
extracts,  and  we  therefore  claim  that  the  textile  manufacturers  of 
this  country  should  now  be  given  an  opportunity  of  buying  and  using 
water  tannins  and  nutgall  extracts  by  the  aid  of  a  lower  tariff. 

Regarding  nutgall  extracts,  we  differ  materially  from  Messrs. 
Zinsser  &  Co.  in  their  statement  that  these  extracts  are  simply  solu- 
tions of  tannic  acid.  As  regards  our  nutgall  extracts,  we  would 
positively  state  that  they  are  not  such  solutions,  but  are  aqueous 
extracts  from  China  nutgalls.  Thus  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  as  Messrs. 
Zinsser  &  Co.  propose  is  unwarranted,  except  to  act  as  a  stop  to  the 
further  importation  of  these  extracts  which  are  so  necessary  to  all  the 
silk  manufacturers  of  America. 

We  trust  that  the  proposed  duty  on  tannic  acid  of  4  cents  per  pound, 
and  on  nutgall  extract  10  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  as  already  passed 
by  the  retiring  Congress,  may  not  be  altered,  at  least  not  for  products 
manufactured  by  the  water  process. 


54  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

We  should  very  much  appreciate  it  if  you  would  kindly  place  our 
communication  before  the  proper  committee  for  hearing  to  be  held, 
we  understand,  on  the  6th  instant. 

Very  respectfully,  GEIGY-TER  MEER  Co. 

ROBERT  J.  KELLER. 
ALFRED  KUBLER, 

Vice  President. 

STATEMENT  OF  F.  BEEDT  &  CO.,  NEW  YOEK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6, 1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

CJiairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives. 

SIR:  We,  the  undersigned  chemical  manufacturers  and  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  tannic  acid  and  its  derivatives,  respectfully  request 
your  kind  consideration  of  the  following  paragraphs : 

Paragraph  1,  tannic  acid  or  tannin,  duty  35  cents  per  pound.  In 
view  of  the  changes,  conditions,  and  prices  of  solvents  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  this  product  we  consider  that  a  fair  and  just  rate  of 
duty  would  be  15  cents  per  pound. 

Paragraphs  20  and  22,  gall  extract,  duty  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound  and  10  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Gall  extract  is  really  tannic  acid 
in  solution,  in  which  tannic  acid  is  the  ingredient  of  chief  or  sole  value; 
in  fact,  gall  extract  for  many  purposes  can  and  is  used  in  place  of 
tannic  acid. 

We  further  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  gall  extract 
can  be  converted  into  tannic  acid  by  drying,  and  we  consider  that  a 
fair  and  just  rate  of  duty  for  this  product — gall  extract — would  be 
25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  have  manufactured  tannic  acid  and  gall  extract  for  about  30 
years  in  New  York,  and  have  invested  a  considerable  amount  in  build- 
ingS)  machinery,  equipment,  etc.,  for  the  special  production  of 
tannic  acid  and  gall  extract.  We  have  given  the  matter  under  pres- 
ent conditions  careful  and  thorough  study  and  respectfully  submit 
the  following  rates  of  duty  for  these  products,  which  we  consider  fair 
and  just: 

Paragraph  1,  tannic  acid,  or  tannin,  15  cents  per  pound. 

Paragraphs  20  and  22,  gall  extract,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Kespectfully, 

F.  BREDT  &  Co. 

OXALIC  ACID. 

STATEMENT   OF   LEWIS   EMERY,   JR.,  ON  BEHALF  OF   THE 
AMERICAN  ALKALI  &  ACID  CO.,  BRADFORD,  PA. 

Mr.  EMERY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the 
question  that  is  before  the  committee  will  be  prefaced  by  some 
explanation  as  to  what  kali  or  muriate  of  potasn  is  and  how  it  is 
obtained  in  Germany,  the  only  country  in  which  it  is  produced. 

I  have  visited  the  mines  and  wells  from  which  this  product  is  taken. 
There  are  two  ways  of  obtaining  it.  One  is  by  drilling  a  well  or  a 


SCHEDULE  A.  56 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

hole  into  the  ground  to  a  depth  of  some  1,600  to  2,000  feet,  and  by 
the  introduction  of  water,  hot  or  cold,  or  by  steam  the  kali  or  muriate 
of  potash  is  dissolved  and  is  pumped  out.  The  more  modern  and 
cheaper  way,  however,  of  obtaining  it  is  by  sinking  large  shafts, 
'ihe  shaft  that  I  saw  being  sunk  at  the  time  I  visited  the  field  was  16 
feet  in  diameter,  and  at  that  time  it  was  down  1,600  feet,  and  they 
sunk  it  to  a  depth  of  2,200  feet,  and  there  they  struck  this  great 
deposit  of  kali  or  potash.  It  is  taken  from  the  ground  the  same  as 
you  take  out  coal  or  almost  any  other  mineral,  if  you  may  call  it 
such.  Therefore,  the  German  Government  has  a  complete  monopoly 
on  the  raw  product. 

The  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.,  as  you  will  see  from  the  circular, 
is  the  first  and  only  factory  in  this  country.  Now,  if  the  chairman 
will  permit,  I  will  read. 

The  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.,  of  Bradford,  Pa.,  respectfully  sub- 
mits the  following  facts  to  show  that  the  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound 
on  oxalic  acid  be  retained,  and  that  the  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem 
on  salts  of  oxalic  acid  be  also  retained,  the  said  salts  of  oxalic  acid 
being  calcium  oxalate,  potassium  oxalate,  ammonium  oxalate,  and  all 
other  oxalic-acid  salts  not  mentioned. 

Before  presenting  our  facts  we  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
following:  We  are  up  against  two  foreign  trusts,  both  of  which  are 
strongly  supported  and  protected  by  the  German  Government — the 
German  Potash  Trust,  which  controls  the  supply  of  our  most-needed 
raw  material,  caustic  potash,  and,  secondly,  the  German  Oxalic  Acid 
Syndicate. 

These  two  trusts  go  hand  in  hand,  and  the  reason,  as*  I  say,  the 
German  Government  controls  this  product  is  because  it  has  retained 
an  interest  in  the  products  of  the  soil  of  Germany  in  regard  to  every- 
thing, as  I  understand.  It  is  a  wise  Government,  and  therefore  they 
have  a  direct  interest  in  this  product,  and  they  permit  syndicated 
power  throughout  the  entire  German  Empire. 

The  base  product  used  in  the  manufacture  of  oxalic  acid  is  caustic 
potash,  which  is  a  product  of  kali,  or  muriate  of  potash. 

Below  we  give  the  reasons  why  the  tariff  should  not  be  changed. 

1.  In  the  year  1911   the  German  Government,   against  the  ex- 
tended protest  of  the  United  States  Government,  placed  an  export 
duty  of  $0.0119  per  pound  on  muriate  of  potash  or  raw  material. 

2.  The  Underwood  committee  in  1912  placed  a  United  States  im- 
port duty  of  $0.006  per  pound  on  the  raw  material  (caustic  potash), 
product  of  muriate  of  potash. 

(The  two  items  mentioned  above  have  raised  the  price  of  the  raw 
material  $0.0179  per  pound,  which  is  a  very  severe  blow  to  the 
manufacture  of  oxalic  acid,  because  we  can  not  obtain  the  raw  mate- 
rial in  any  other  country  in  the  world  except  Germany.) 

3.  The  Underwood  committee  of  1911  also  reduced  the  duty  on 
oxalic  acid  from  2  to  \\  cents,  which,  from  the  above,  would  seem 
eminently  unfair,  as  our  business  is  hit  by  the  action  of  both  Ger- 
many and  the  United  States. 

4.  We  are  the  first  and  only  manufacturers  of  oxalic  acid  in  the 
United  States. 

5.  The  difference  in  labor  cost  is  in  favor  of  the  foreign  manufac- 
turers, our  product  representing  60  per  cent  of  its  cost  in  labor. 


56.  TABLFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   1— ACIDS. 

6.  The  German  Government  trust  or  potash  syndicate  control  the 
base  raw  material,  potash. 

7.  The  oxalic-acid  syndicate  or  trust  in  Germany  control  the  pro- 
duction and  sales  of  oxalic  acid,  as  Germany  produces  seven-tenths 
of  all  the  oxalic  acid  consumed. 

8.  The  industry  is  young  and  needs  the  Government's  assistance 
for  a  time. 

9.  During  the  years  1903-1907,  the  German  syndicate  succeeded 
in  driving  the  American  Acid  &  Alkali  Co.  to  the  wall,  and  their 
property  was  sold  at  sheriff's  sale  on  June  2,  1908.     In  1909  the  duty 
of  2  cents  per  pound  was  granted,  and  we  have  revived  the  business, 
and  at  the  present  tune  oxalic  acid  is  not  so  expensive  to  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  as  it  was  for  a  number  of  years  previous  to  this 
time,  even  with  the  duty  upon  it.     (See  reference  for  prices  in  1903- 
1907  hi  statistical  list.) 

10.  Germany  protects  her  oxalic-acid  manufacturers  with  an  import 
duty  on  oxalic  acid. 

The  manufacture  of  oxalic  acid  and  its  by-products  is  a  new  Ameri- 
can industry,  the  first  and  only  American  factory  being  located  at 
Bradford,  Pa.  The  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.,  of  Bradford,  Pa., 
incorporated  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  was 
organized  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  oxalic  acid,  and  19  large 
buildings,  covering  10  acres  of  land,  were  built  and  equipped  to 
this  end,  at  the  cost  of  $500,000.  That  does  not  cover  the  entire 
money  which  we  have  spent;  the  total  amount  has  been  several 
hundred  thousand  more,  because  we  have  been  up  against  the  real 
thine;. 

We  would  call  your  attention  to  the  four  important  differences  in 
the  cost  of  manufacture  and  sale  of  oxalic  acid  in  the  United  States 
compared  to  those  existing  in  Germany  and  other  foreign  countries, 
where  are  located  the  principal  manufacturers  of  this  article. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  common  labor  in  the  United  States  is 
paid  about  100  per  cent  more  than  is  paid  for  the  same  class  of  labor 
in  Germany.  We  pay  an  average  wage  per  hour  in  our  oxalic-acid 
plant  of  20  cents,  and  the  German  wage  for  the  same  class  of  work 
is  8  cents  and  9  cents  per  hour.  For  factory  superintendents,  chemists, 
engineers,  and  other  positions  of  responsibility  there  is  an  even 
greater  difference  in  the  scale  of  wages  paid.  In  the  manufacture  of 
oxalic  acid  the  cost  of  raw  material  used  is  now  practically  constant, 
but  we  would  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  price  of  our  raw 
materials  has  increased  40  per  cent  within  the  last  four  years.  The 
labor  cost  in  the  manufacture  of  oxalic  acid  is  the  larger  part  of  the 
total  cost,  and  the  cost  of  raw  materials  being  constant,  any  reduc- 
tion in  the  manufacturing  cost  must  necessarily  be  borne  by  the  labor 
item. 

As  is  well  known,  there  are  no  commercial  deposits  of  potash  salts 
in  the  United  States.  Potash  is  necessary  for  the  manufacture  of 
oxalic  acid,  and  the  Germans  control,  through  the  German  Govern- 
ment and  the  potash  sjmdicate,  all  the  raw  material  for  the  world's 
supply  of  potash  in  its  various  forms.  It  is  also  a  well-known  fact 
that  the  German  Government  aids  the  Kali  Syndicate,  or  German 
Potash  Trust,  in  almost  any  manner  they  may  desire.  According 


SCHEDULE  A.  57 

PARAGRAPH  1—  ACIDS. 

to  the  Imperial  German  law  and  regulations  regarding  the  sale  of 
kali  or  potash  (par.  24)  the  Government  forbids  the  sale  of  kali  cheaper 
abroad  than  for  the  German  interior.  (Imperial  German  law  and 
regulation  regarding  the  sale  of  kali,  par.  24.)  "The  prices  for  sell- 
ing and  delivering  kali  abroad  must  not  be  lower  than  those  given 
for  the  German  interior." 

This  restriction  guarantees  to  the  German  consumer  of  potash 
in  any  form  from  the  potash  syndicate  at  a  maximum,  or  highest 
price,  which  can  not  be  more  than  the  minimum,  or  lowest,  price 
abroad,  and  this  guaranty  is  upheld  by  the  German  Government. 

In  other  words,  that  the  minimum  price  paid  by  the  Americans 
is  the  maximum  price  paid  by  the  Germans.  It  can  be  as  much  lower 
as  they  see  fit  to  sell  it  at.  Therefore,  there  is  an  agreement  that  the 
price  in  this  country  shall  be  fixed  at  a  stipulated  sum,  but  they  can 
make  it  as  much  lower  to  the  German  manufacturers  of  oxalic  acid 
as  they  see  fit. 

The  oxalic-acid  manufacturers  of  Germany,  Russia,  England, 
Belgium,  Norway,  and  Austria  have  formed  a  syndicate,  headed  and 
controlled  bv  the  German  manufacturers,  to  hold  at  a  high  level  the 
price  of  oxalic  acid  in  their  respective  countries,  and  to  deliver  the 
surplus  to  the  United  States.  Prior  to  the  control  of  the  oxalic-acid 
trade  by  the  German  manufacturers,  through  the  syndicate,  all  for- 
eign producers  sold  their  product  in  the  United  States  on  a  compet- 
itive basis,  and  the  consumer  in  the  United  States  bought  his  oxalic 
acid  at  a  very  low  figure  because  of  the  keen  competition  among  the 
European  manufacturers.  By  maintaining  a  high  price  abroad  for  a 
major  part  of  their  product,  the  foreign  manufacturers  were  able  to 
sell  then-  surplus  production  in  the  United  States  at  the  best  price 
they  could  obtain  in  the  open  market.  The  use  of  oxalic  acid  in  the 
United  States  has  increased  nearly  70  per  cent  in  the  past  eight  years 
and  the  price  has  remained  practically  constant  for  the  last  six  years. 

In  fact,  it  has  increased  since  its  introduction  in  1884,  the  first 
statistics  we  had  of  it,  over  several  hundred  per  cent. 

This,  we  believe,  was  due  to  our  presence  as  manufacturers  in  the 
oxalic-acid  market  in  the  United  States.  We  have  been  a  check  on 
the  advancing  trust  price,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  incident:  In 
1906  the  price  of  acid  wTas  7£  cents  per  pound,  New  York.  In  the 
early  part  of  1907  our  plant  in  Bradford  was  shut  down  to  overcome 
some  difficulties  in  our  process.  Remember  that  we  knew  nothing 
about  this  business,  and  we  could  not  get  the  necessary  expert  labor 
from  Germany  or  from  any  other  country  to  teach  us  how,  and  our 
process  was  rather  crude  at  first,  and  we  were  shut  down  for  nearly  a 
year.  Simultaneously  the  price  of  oxalic  acid  jumped  to  9  cents 
f.  o.  b.  New  York,  and  that  price  was  maintained  until  we  started 
operations  again;  then  the  price  of  oxalic  acid  dropped  again  to  7£ 
cents.  We  believe  that  with  all  competition  removed  by  reduction 
in  the  tariff  the  German  syndicate  would  immediately  raise  the  price 
in  the  United  States  to  a  figure  as  high,  or  higher,  than  that  main- 
tained during  the  time  of  our  shutdown.  The  2-cent  duty  on  oxalic 
acid  is  no  burden  to  the  ultimate  consumer.  This  is  proven  by  the 
fact  that  the  price  of  oxalic  acid  for  the  four  years  since  the  duty  has 
been  effective  has  not  been  as  high  as  for  the  two  years  preceding  the 


58 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 
PARAGBAPH  1— ACIDS. 


imposing  of  the  tariff.     We  give  below  the  table  showing  the  prices 
of  oxalic  acid  in  the  years  shown  in  the  table. 


Government  statistics  on  oxalic  acid. 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Price. 

1884... 

Pounds. 
1,371,842 

$145,392.00 

$0.11 

1886  •  

1,371,030 

137,137.00 

.10 

1886  

1,488,539 

106,  608.  & 

.07 

1887  

1,865,878 

129,149  00 

.07 

1888  

1,387,527 

100,831.00 

.07 

1889  

1,851,682 

142,757.00 

.08 

1890  

1,973,050 

139,676.00 

.07 

1891..    .                   

2,743,222 

200,  595.  00 

.07 

1892  

2,209,940 

150,  529.  75 

.07 

1893                                       .... 

2,  464,  443 

143,194  00 

.06 

1894  

2,783,876 

159,026.00 

.06 

1895 

2,889,513 

189,506  00 

.066 

1895  

3,  164,  964 

219,  630.  00 

.07 

1897  

3,602,124 

246,  200.  00 

.07 

189.S 

3,  (47,041 

242,  276.  00 

.075 

1899  

3,981,788 

246,027.94 

.06 

1900 

4,  900,  123 

275,  747.  00 

.055 

1901      ..             

5,622,908.60 

300,  879.  00 

.054 

1902  

5,678,139 

301,675-00 

.053 

1903        .                 ..               ... 

5,363,646 

257,289.00 

.048 

1904  

6,  726,  159 

329,836.00 

.049 

1905  .-  

7,906,886 

360,951.00 

.046 

1906        :  

7,129,105 

334,855.00 

.047 

1907  

7,296,246 

376,860.00 

.052 

1  90S        

8,853,539 

524,836.00 

.06 

1909  

9,797,901 

'621,387.00 

.063 

1910  

r  1,002,  626 

61,271.00 

.061 

i  Duty  on  Aug.  6,  1909,  $96,<>51.06. 
Sales  price  to  consumer  during  years  1904-1912. 


Cents. 


1904 
1905 
190G 


1907 9    and  74 

1908...  .   7    and 


Cents. 

5    and  5^  1909 7}  and  7$ 

5    and  5i  1910 7±  and  1\ 

5iand7i  j  1911 7    and  7^ 


1912 7    and  7} 


In  addition  to  the  foregoing  reasons  why  the  duty  of  2  cents  a 
pound  be  retained  on  oxalic  acid  and  be  placed  on  the  salts  of  oxalic 
acid,  we  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
German  Government  imposed  a  duty  of  approximately  1  cent  per 
pound  on  any  oxalic  acid  imported  into  Germany.  It  was  on  account 
of  fear,  due  to  that  condition  of  things,  that  they  immediatelv  pro- 
tected their  manufacturers.  Russia  has  also  placed  a  tariff  of  3 
cents  per  pound  on  oxalic  acid,  and  Austria  and  Belgium  have  fol- 
lowed on  the  same  line.  They  are  very  jealous  of  their  manufac- 
turers, and  each  one  has  attempted  to  take  care  of  their  manufac- 
turers in  the  respective  countries. 

This  fact,  together  with  the  natural  advantages  of  cheap  raw 
materials,  cheap  transportation,  cheap  labor,  and  unlimited  supply 
of  potash,  gives  the  German  manufacturers  the  power  with  which 
the}7  can- completely  destroy  all  competition  unless  the  present  duty 
is  retained. 

We  trust  we  have  made  clear  the  necessity  for  duty  on  oxalic  acid 
and  its  salts,  and  ask  that  you  recommend  to  the  Congress  of  the 


SCHEDULE  A.  59 

PARAGRAPH  1— ACIDS. 

United  States  that  the  present  tariff  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  oxalic 
acid  be  retained  and  that  a  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  be  retained 
on  the  salts  of  oxalic  acid. 

I  might  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  quite  a  number 
of  people  started  out  in  the  manufacture  of  this  oxalic  acid,  but,  as 
we  say  in  common  parlance,  "they  got  cold  feet"  because  of  the 
enormous  amount  of  money  we  had  expended.  They  let  it  go 
because  of  this  competition  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  on  June 
2,  1908,  the  plant  was  sold  at  sheriff  sale  for  its  debts.  A  copy  of 
the  deed  is  hereto  appended.  On  that  point  I  would  like  to  call 
your  attention  for  a  moment  to  the  reason  we  were  obliged  to  shut 
down. 

We  commenced  the  construction  of  that  factory  in  1903,  and 
immediately  upon  our  doing  so  the  German  manufacturers  reduced 
their  prices  from  6  cents  in  1901  to  4-^  in  1903;  4-j%-  cents  in  1904; 
4^  cents  in  1905,  and  to  5^  cents  in  1906.  Then  we  came  into 
the  market.  We  feared  that  they  would  attempt  to  break  our 
back  again,  as  our  backs  were  broken  financially  in  our  first  attempt, 
and  we  then  asked  the  United  States  Congress  to  protect  us,  and 
they  did  by  levying  an  import  duty  of  2  cents  a  pound,  which  went 
into  effect  August  6,  1909. 

Now,  we  would  like  to  have  the  2-cent  duty  remain.  Why? 
Because,  as  you  will  note  from  the  said  figures  indicating  the  Gov- 
ernment statistics  of  the  United  States,  the  prices  at  which  the 
goods  were  billed  from  Germany,  England,  and  Norway  to  their 
respective  representatives  in  the  United  States  for  resale  were,  from 
1884  to  1903,  maintained  at  a  high  price.  We  are  also  appending 
hereto  a  schedule  of  the  average  sale  price  to  the  consumer  from  1904 
to  1912,  inclusive. 

The  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.,  in  whose  behalf  I  ask  the  main- 
tenance of  a  2-cent  duty  on  oxalic  acid,  commenced  the  construc- 
tion of  their  plant  during  the  year  1903.  The  plant  was  not  con- 
structed along  proper  lines  and  was  rebuilt  three  separate  times, 
and  did  not  commence  the  manufacture  of  oxalic  acid  until  the  fall 
of  1907.  You  will  note  that  the  prevailing  price  in  1904  and  1905 
during  the  early  construction  of  our  plant  was  from  5  to  5J  cents. 
This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  we  had  produced  a  small  quantity  of 
goods  and  put  them  on  the  market  during  that  period.  However, 
during  1906  we  shut  the  plant  down  completely,  and  you  will  note 
that  in  that  year  the  German  manufacturers  combined  with  the 
English  and  Norwegians  to  form  the  Oxalic  Syndicate,  raised  the 
price  to  1\  cents,  and  from  that  in  1907  to  9  cents,  which  price  pre- 
vailed until  t'he  fall  of  the  year,  when  we  again  started  operations 
in  our  plant. 

The  financial  strain  was  so  heavy  in  the  year  1907  and  1908  that 
on  June  2,  1908,  the  plant  was  sold  at  sheriff  sale,  as  above  stated.  I 
purchased  same  and  became  the  sole  owner  of  this  company,  which  was 
reorganized  under  the  name  of  the  .American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.  In 
1908  we  became  a  factor  in  the  oxalic  business  in  the  United  States, 
and  the  German  Oxalic  Syndicate  immediately  reduced  the  price 
to  6£  cents,  which  price  was  maintained  until  August  6,  1909,  at 
which  time  the  tariff  of  2  cents  went  into  effect  on  the  commodity. 


60  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  1— ACIDS. 

The  price  was  then  raised  to  7£  and  7£  cents,  which  price  has  been 
prevalent  during  the  following  years,  1910,  1911,  and  1912,  and  you 
will  note  by  the  schedule  incorporated  in  this  paper  that  the  German 
syndicate  raised  the  price  as  soon  as  we  were  incapacitated,  but  im- 
mediately upon  our  return  to  the  market  the  prices  were  lowered 
with  the  evident  intention  of  driving  us  out  of  the  business. 

Let  us  now  ask  how  oxalic  acid  is  made  from  kali.  I  expected  to 
have  a  sample  of  oxalic  acid  and  kali  here,  but  the  express  companies, 
I  suppose,  have  failed  to  deliver  it.  So  that  you  may  thoroughly 
understand  it,  I  will  say  that  kali  is  distilled  from  what  is  called 
"caustic  potash."  Caustic  potash  is  the  basis.  The  next  product 
that  is  put  into  the  caustic  potash  is  sawdust.  That  is  fed  into  the 
kettles,  where  it  is  digested,  and  then  it  is  taken  from  there.  Then 
we  use  lime;  after  that  we  use  sulphuric  acid.  We  use  15,000  pounds 
of  lime  a  day,  and  we  use  about  10,000  pounds  of  sawdust  a  day,  and 
for  every  pound  of  oxalic  acid  that  we  produce  we  use  1.17  pounds  of 
sulphuric  acid.  If  you  will  notice  upon  that  picture  there,  we  have 
done  everything  that  we  could  to  cheapen  our  products.  We  built 
a  large  sulphuric-acid  plant,  that  we  might  get  it  down  to  the  manu- 
facturer's cost;  and  we  have  gone  so  far  as  to  buy  tracts  of  timber, 
that  we  might  be  sure  of  having  a  source  of  supply  for  our  sawdust 
in  the  future.  The  question  of  lime  is  a  serious  one. 

Now,  the  enormous  amount  of  lime  that  we  use,  the  enormous 
amount  of  sawdust  that  we  use,  and  the  enormous  amount  of  sul- 
phuric acid  that  we  use,  give  employment  to  hundreds  of  men, 
although  the  number  employed  directly  in  the  factory  is  only  about 
70  to  80  men. 

You  have  only  to  turn  to  the  statistics  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment as  to  the  prices  of  these  goods  to  show  what  the  situation  was 
in  1903,  1904,  and  1905.  It  was  only  done  to  drive  the  American 
out  of  business;  that  is  all. 

Who  uses  this  product  ?  The  American  print  works  use  a  million 
pounds  a  year.  The  shirt  and  collar  you  wear  upon  your  person  are 
washed  partially  with  it,  and  2,500,000  pounds  of  it  are  used  by  the 
laundry  people.  Then,  again,  the  tanning  industry  are  large  users 
of  oxalic  acid.  This  product  enters  largely  into  the  chestnut  extracts 
of  the  South  for  clarification  purposes  and  for  other  purposes  too 
numerous  to  mention. 

Lot  me  say  to  this  committee  that  there  is  no  company.  I  am  the 
company;  and  I  have  withstood  the  storm  and  battle  for  years,  and  I 
am  going  to  withstand  it  longer  if  possible. 

Since  I  have  been  at  the  head  of  the  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co. 
wo  have  had  in  our  emplov  continually  one  or  two  research  chem- 
ists; and  the  reason  that  those  goods  nave  gained  to  the  enormous 
percentage  of  70  per  cent  in  the  last  six  or  seven  years  is  because  we 
have  found  now  uses  for  this  product,  and  it  is  but  in  its  infancy  at 
the  present  time. 

Why  should  the  American  Alkali  &  Acid  Co.  not  have  protection? 
In  1911  there  were  7,538,000  pounds  brought  into  this  country,  and 
we  manufactured  about  2, 000, 000 pounds  additional,  making  9,000,000 
pounds  and  upward.  The  United  States  Government  received  from 
the  duty  on  the  importation  of  oxalic  acid  $141,177.98. 


SCHEDULE   A.  61 

PABAGRAPH  3— OELS. 

We  are  working  with  a  process  at  the  present  time  to  materially 
reduce  the  price  of  oxalic  acid?  and  if  the  United  States  Congress  will 
allow  this  duty  to  remain  as  it  is  for  the  present  we  will  be  able  to 
cheapen  the  commodity  to  the  consumer  ii  the  process  on  which  we 
are  working  fully  materializes. 

In  addition  to  all  the  foregoing  we  are  manufacturers  of  22  per  cent 
dark  commercial  lactic  acid.  There  are  three  manufacturers  of  lactic 
acid  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time.  Originally  the  duty 
on  this  commodity  was  4  cents,  then  reduced  to  3  cents,  and  is  now 
1J  cents.  We  are  perfectly  willing  that  the  duty  should  be  taken  off 
if  you  see  fit,  as  we  have  perfected  our  process  to  such  a  degree  that 
wo  are  to-day  selling  these  goods  to  the  consumer  at  2  cents  per 
pound,  package  included,  f.  o.  b.  our  works,  and  this  to  the  amount 
of  2,000,000  pounds  per  year,  with  the  prospects  of  a  large  increase  in 
consumption  during  the  ensuing  year. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Emery,  I  do  not  like  to  limit  you,  but  you 
have  already  had  20  minutes. 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  am  ready  for  any  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  any  gentleman  desire  to  ask  Mr.  Emery  any 
questions.  [After  a  pause.]  That  is  all. 

PARAGRAPH  2. 

Alcoholic  compounds,  including  all  articles  consisting  of  vegetable,  animal, 
or  mineral  objects  immersed  or  placed  in,  or  saturated  with,  alcohol,  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  sixty  cents  per  pound  and  twenty- 
five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  3. 

Alkalies,  alkaloids,  distilled  oils,  essential  oils,  expressed  oils,  rendered 
oils,  and  all  combinations  of  the  foregoing,  and  all  chemical  compounds, 
mixtures  and  salts,  and  all  greases,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  chemical  compounds,  mixtures  and 
salts  containing  alcohol  or  in  the  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used,  and 
not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifty-five  cents  per  pound,  but  in 
no  case  shall  any  of  the  foregoing  pay  less  than  twenty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

For  sodium  cyanide,  see  also  Roessler  &  Hasslacher  Chemical  Co.,  page  372;  for 
sodium  sulphide,  see  also  W.  H.  Nichols,  jr.,  page  36;  for  formaldehyde,  see  also 
Dr.  S.  Lewis  Summers,  page  14;  for  perilla  oil,  see  also  S.  L.  Jones  &  Co.,  page  259; 
for  sulphide  of  soda,  see  also  General  Chemical  Co.,  page  40;  for  aqua  ammonia,  see 
also  Michigan  Ammonia  Works,  page  98. 

OILS. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS. 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y.,  January  4,  1913. 
Mr.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  respectfully  request  that  the  following  communica- 
tion be  made  a  part  of  the  hearings  by  your  committee  of  the  pro- 
posed changes  in  the  chemical  schedule  and  the  free  list  of  the  present 
tariff  law : 

During  the  past  two  years  we  have  been  investigating  the  crushing 
in  the  United  States  of  various  oil  seeds,  nuts,  and  beans  grown  in 
foreign  countries,  with  the  idea  of  competing  with  Europe  and  the 


62-  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

United  Kingdom,  each  of  which  is  now  extensively  engaged  in  this 
branch  of  manufacture  and  is  exporting  the  oil  to  this  country  in 
great  quantities. 

In  our  investigations  we  have  discovered  that,  although  none  of 
the  raw  materials,  with  the  exception  of  peanuts,  is  grown  in  the 
United  States,  there  is  under  the  present  tariff  law  either  a  sufficiently 
heavy  duty  imposed  upon  these  raw  materials  and  a  proportionately 
low  oluty  on  the  resultant  oil,  as  to  render  economic  manufacture  in 
the  United  States  a  practical  impossibility,  due  to  the  necessity  of 
importing  a  dutiable  raw  material  and  manufacturing  a  duty-free 
product  in  competition  with  Europe  where  the  raw  material  is 
imported  duty  free.  Or  there  is  no  duty  on  either  raw  material  or 
oil,  which  makes  it  impossible  to  compete  with  Europe  owing  to  their 
cheap  freight  rates  on  raw  materials,  their  cheap  labor,  and  their 
ready  market  for  the  by-products  (oil  cake)  almost  none  of  which  can 
be  marketed  in  this  country.  This  condition  results  in  American 
consumers  being  forced  to  buy  foreign  oils  through  importers  and 
brokers  on  foreign  terms,  paying  higher  prices  than  necessary  and 
having  little  recourse  in  the  case  of  inferior  quality. 

We  believe  that  the  oils  enumerated  below  can  be  manufactured 
in  this  country  with  the  same  success  that  they  are  now  manufactured 
in  foreign  countries,  and  that  the  result  will  be  the  starting  in  the  United 
States  of  industries  hitherto  untried  with  the  further  result  of  better 
and  cheaper  oil  to  the  consumer. 

Let  us  repeat  that  none  of  those  oil  seeds  or  nuts  is  grown  in  this 
country,  with  the  exception  of  peanuts,  which  article  is  treated 
separately  in  the  detailed  explanation  below.  Therefore  there  can 
l)e  no  injustice  done  the  American  farmer  by  lowering  the  duty  on 
the  materials  enumerated  below  and  allowing  their  crushing  in  this 
country. 

Some  of  the  materials,  the  crushing  of  which  we  have  investigated, 
are  not  specifically  provided  for  in  tho  tariff  act,  thus  bringing  them 
under  the  n.  s.  p.  f.  clause  for  oil  seeds  or  25  cents  per  bushel  of  56 
pounds. 

As  this  branch  of  manufacture  has  boon  neglected  in  this  country 
up  to  this  time,  we  fool  that  this  chomical  schedule  of  the  Payne- 
Aldrich  Tariff  Act  has  become  obsolete  and  that  it  should  be  changed 
in  order  to  allow  manufacturers  to  build  up  now  oil  industries  in  this 
country  similar  to  those  abroad.  Thore  has  been  during  the  last  10 
years  a  tremendous  growth  in  tho  oil  sood  crushing  industry  in  Mar- 
seilles, Rotterdam,  nnd  tho  other  centers  of  Europe,  most  of  which 
growth  has  boon  occasioned  by  the  inoroasod  demand  for  oil  in  the 
Unitod  States.  It  is  our  hope  that  if  tho  schedule  is  changed  the 
United  States  may  bo  enabled  to  retain  this  large  business  and  thereby 
improve  tho  condition  of  both  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer. 

We  have  given  this  matter  much  study  and  we  respectfully  submit 
to  your  committee1  the  request  that,  the  following  be  the  rates  of  duty 
on  tho  following  materials.  Wo  have  given  in  this  schedule  a  de- 
tailed description  of  each  seed,  its  resultant  oil  with  the  present  and 
suggested  duty:  a  record  of  the  imports  into  the  United  States  from 
September  1,  1911,  to  September  1,  1912,  of  each  oil  and  following 
this  date  a  condensed  paragraph  giving  materials  and  the  suggested 
duties. 


SCHEDULE   A.  63 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

Shea  nuts,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f . ;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Shea-nut  oil,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f . ;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

This  nut  is  a  native  of  India  and  is  not  grown  in  the  United  States. 
It  is  inedible.  The  oil  when  refined  is  used  for  edible  purposes  and 
when  raw  for  soap-making  purposes.  This  oil  was  classed  under 
"all  other  oils"  in  the  import  record. 

Soya  bean,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f. ;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Soya-bean  oil,  present  duty  free;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

A  native  of  Manchuria.  Inedible.  Not  grown  in  the  United 
States.  Oil  used  for  paint  purposes  and  for  soap  making.  Imports 
during  1912,  26,230,061  pounds. 

Mowra  seed,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f.;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Mowra  oil,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f.;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

This  seed  is  a  native  of  India.  Inedible.  Not  grown  in  the 
United  States.  Resembles  the  peanut.  Oil  used  for  soap,  and,  when 
refined,  for  edible  fats.  No  imports  during  1912. 

Niger  seed,  present  duty  n.  s.  p.  f.;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Niger  oil,  present  duty  25  per  cent;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

Native  of  India.  Not  grown  in  the  United  States.  Inedible. 
Oil  used  for  soap  and,  when  refined,  for  edible  purposes.  Classed  under 
"  all  other  oils"  in  imports. 

Sesame  seed,  present  duty,  25  cents  per  bushel;  suggested  duty, 
free. 

Sesame  oil,  present  duty,  free;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per  pound. 

Native  of  India.  Not  grown  in  the  United  States.  Oil  used  for 
soap  and  edible  purposes.  Imports  during  1912.  Classed  under 
"  all  other  oils." 

Palm  kernels,  present  duty,  free;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Palm-kernel  oil,  present  duty,  free;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

Native  of  Africa  and  South  America.  Not  grown  in  the  United 
States.  Inedible.  Oil  used  for  soap,  and,  when  refined,  used  for 
edible  purposes.  Oil  imports  during  1912,  29,323,889  pounds. 

Peanuts,  present  duty  (shelled),  1  cent  per  pound;  suggested  duty, 
free. 

Ground  nuts,  present  duty  (unshelled),  \  cent  per  pound;  suggested 
duty,  free. 

Peanut  oil,  present  duty,  free;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per  pound. 

Native  of  Africa.  Oil  used  for  edible  purposes.  Imports  during 
1912,  6,878,237  pounds. 

Peanuts  are  grown  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  but  are  almost 
entirely  exported  to  France  or  used  here  for  roasting  or  eating. 
These  are  of  a  superior  quality  to  the  African  nuts  and  are  hi  con- 
sequence used  for  edible  purposes  and  command  a  premium  and  are 
not  crushed.  The  African 'peanuts,  on  the  other  hand,  are  used 
entirely  for  crushing  purposes  and  do  not,  therefore,  compete  with 
the  American  peanuts.  The  American  nut  is  grown  in  quantities 
insufficient  even  to  supply  the  demand  for  a  roasting  peanut.  We 


64  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

will  suggest  that  the  words  "for  crushing  purposes  only"  be  inserted 
in  the  new  schedule  as  applying  to  peanuts. 

Candlenut,  present  duty,  tree;  suggested  duty,  free. 

Candlenut  oil,  present  duty,  n.  s.  p.  f.;  suggested  duty,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

Not  grown  in  the  United  States.  Used  for  burning  and  soap 
purposes. 

SUMMARY. 

Free  list. — Shea  nuts,  soya  beans,  mowra  seeds,  niger  seeds,  sesame 
seed,  palm  kernels,  ground  nuts  or  peanuts  for  crushing  purposes 
only,  candlenuts. 

Duty  2  cents  per  pound. — Shea-nut  oil,  soya-bean  oil,  inowra  oil, 
niger  oil,  sesame  oil,  palm-kernel  oil,  peanut  or  ground-nut  oil, 
candlenut  oil. 

In  conclusion,  may  we  express  the  hope  that  our  requests  will  be 
granted  and  the  chemical  schedule  changed  according  to  our  sugges- 
tions.    Should  this  be  done,  we  are  sure  that  great  benefit  will  result 
to  both  the  American  manufacturer  and  the  American  consumer. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS  (!NC.). 
GEORGE  H.  SICARD. 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y.,  January  10,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  wish  to  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  inclosed 
letters  which  we  have  sent  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means,  of  which  we  understand  you  are  a  member. 

We  desire  to  point  out  the  good  results  that  would  accrue  to 
consumers  of  oils  as  well  as  to  the  manufacturers,  should  our  ideas 
of  duties  be  followed. 

Of  course,  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  the  raw  materials  (shea 
nuts,  soya  beans,  mowra,  niger,  sesame,  palm  kernels,  peanuts,  and 
candlenuts)  would  encourage  the  starting  in  this  country  of  crushing 
industries  in  competition  with  this  branch  of  manufacture  in  Europe. 
This  would  result  in  groat  benefit  to  the  consumer  for  the  following 
reasons : 

(1)  It  would  enable  him  to  buy  oil  direct  from  the  manufacturer 
and  not  through  brokers,  as  is  now  done,  thus  saving  him  the  broker's 
commission. 

(2)  He  would  also  be  saved  the  loss  that  almost  invariably  results 
through  leakage  when  oil  is  imported,  which  leakage  can  not  be  and 
is  not  covered  by  any  exporter  under  1  per  cent. 

(3)  The   consumer   would    also    have   direct   recourse   in   case   of 
inferior  quality  of  the  oil.  to  a  reputable  American  manufacturer, 
governed  by  the  same  laws  as  the  consumer,  and  anxious  to  please, 
knowing  that  his  trade  depends  entirely  on  his  reputation  here  in 
this  country.     But,  in  case  the  manufacturer  should  not  show  any 
disposition  to  adjust   the  claims  of  the  consumer,  the  latter  could 
refuse  to  pay  the  bill,  and  would  thereby  have  a  lever  with  which 
to  force  the  manufacturer  to  come  to  terms,  and  in  case  this  should 
fail,  recourse  could  be  had  to  the  law,  which  treats  manufacturer 
and  consumer  alike. 


SCHEDULE   A.  65 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

As  the  matter  now  stands,  in  case  of  inferior  quality,  the  consumer 
can  only  file  his  claims  with  the  broker,  who  forwards  them  to  the 
manufacturer.  In  case  this  gentleman  does  not  desire  to  settle,  the 
matter  must  be  referred  to  arbitration,  which  arbitration  is  never 
held  in  the  United  States,  but  is  usually  held  in  the  country  and  city 
of  the  manufacturer.  In  case  the  arbitration  proves  unsatisfactory 
to  the  American  consumer,  as  is  usually  the  case,  bis  only  recourse  is 
the  law,  as  he  has  none  of  the  manufacturer's  money  in  his  posses- 
sion, due  to  the  universal  custom  of  paying  sight  drafts  before  the 
documents  can  be  obtained  and  the  cargo  unloaded.  Of  course,  any 
such  lawsuit  would  be  tried  in  the  manufacturer's  country  and  under 
its  laws,  and  would,  in  all  probability,  result  unsatisfactorily  to  the 
consumer. 

(4)  It  would  enable  him  to  get  away  from  the  purchase  of  oils  on 
foreign  terms  and  contracts,  dictated  by  the  manufacturers,  which 
terms  are  highly  unfavorable  to  consumers  in  this  country. 

We  have  further  asked  for  a  duty  on  the  corresponding  oils  (shea, 
soy  bean,  mowra,  niger,  sesame,  palm  kernel,  peanut,  candlenut)  for 
the  following  reasons: 

Aside  from  the  oil  produced  from  these  seeds,  there  is  a  residue  or 
oil  cake,  which  is  used  for  cattle  feeding.  This  material  finds  a  ready 
market  in  Europe,  but  due  to  the  large  supply  of  fodder  in  this  country, 
there  is  very  little  demand  here.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  export 
all  of  this  oil  cake  and  pay  the  freight  to  Europe  in  order  to  compete 
with  the  European  oil  cake.  The  freight  rates  to  Europe  on  oil  and 
oil  cake  are  about  on  a  parity.  But,  as  there  are  about  40  poun.ds  of 
cake  to  15  pounds  of  oil  in  a  bushel  of  seed,  the  freight  on  the  oil  cake 
to  Europe  will  be  correspondingly  higher  per  bushel  or  gallon  than 
the  freight  on  oil  from  Europe,  and,  therefore,  the  American  manufac- 
turer is  working  under  this  disadvantage  and  also  under  the  disad- 
vantage of  the  difference  between  raw  material  freight  to  Europe  and 
America.  Oil  mih1  labor  is  also  cheaper  in  Europe  than  in  the  United 
States.  We,  therefore,  feel  that  a  2  cents  per  pound  duty  on  oil 
would  be  just  in  order  to  encourage  competition  with  Europe  for  the 
oil  business  of  the  United  States.  And  we  further  feel  that,  if  our 
suggestion  of  duties  is  followed,  at  least  four  or  five  oil-seed  crushers 
in  this  country  will  begin  experimenting  with  the  seeds  enumerated 
above,  and  that  there  will  be  keen  competition  among  these  firms  for 
the  oil  business  of  this  country — this  resulting  in  the  general  lowering 
of  prices. 

Before  closing,  we  would  further  call  your  attention  to  the  inclosed 
letter  on  linseed  oil  and  seed.  (See  under  par.  35,  p.  259.)  This 
question  is,  of  course,  familiar  to  you,  but  we  would  like  to  impress 
the  fact  that  when  both  raw  material  and  finished  product  are  duti- 
able, if  there  is  to  be  any  reduction  of  duty  made,  it  should  be  made 
to  each  correspondingly. 

We  would  further  reiterate  our  statement  that  there  is  no  linseed 
oil  trust,  and  that  on  the  contrary  the  business  is  now  conducted  on 
such  a  competitive  basis  that  the  profits  have  been  reduced  to  a 
minimum  and  money  has  been  lost  by  the  company  erroneously 
termed,  "The  trust." 

78959°— VOL  1—13 5 


66  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

We  hope  that  you  will  support  our  suggestions  in  the  meetings  of 
the  committee. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS  (INC.). 
GEO.  H.  SICARD. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  PARK  &  TILFORD,  ALFRED  H.  SMITH 
CO.,  GEORGE  BORGFELDT  &  CO.,  AND  FRANK  M.  BRINDLE. 

JANUARY  6,  1913. 
The  CHAIRMAN  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  importers  of  perfumery,  toilet  preparations,  and 
other  articles  under  Schedule  A,  we  respectfully  submit  the  following 
for  consideration  when  drawing  up  the  new  tariff.  (Reference  is 
made  in  most  instances  to  H.  R.  20182;  when  reference  is  made  to 
the  tariff  act  of  1909,  this  is  specifically  stated.) 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  3. — With  reference  to  the  phrase  "in  the 
manufacture  or  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used,  this  sentence 
should  be  omitted,  because  in  some  instances  the  same  article  is 
manufactured  in  different  ways,  and  there  seems  no  obvious  reason 
why  the  duty  should  be  assessed  differently  because  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  it  alcohol  was  used,  although  alcohol  is  not  contained  in  the 
product. 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  7  (H.  R.  20182,  p.  12).— Should  be 
amended  to  read  "blacking  of  all  kinds,  or  all  creams  and  prepara- 
tions for  cleaning  or  polishing  boots  and  shoes  or  metals  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  whether  in  printed  tin  containers  or  otherwise." 

The  addition  of  the  words  "or  metals"  is  for  the  purpose  of  over- 
coming the  inconsistent  rulings  of  the  appraising  officers  and  courts 
in  holding  powders  and  pastes  for  polishing  metals  to  be  dutiable 
under  paragraph  95  of  the  Payne  bill  as  "articles  of  wares  composed 
wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances  whether  sus- 
ceptible of  decoration  or  not." 

The  addition  of  the  words  "whether  in  printed  tin  containers  or 
otherwise"  is  to  the  amendment  of  paragraph  195  of  the  Payne  bill. 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  17  (H.  R.  20182,  p.  26).— This  paragraph 
should  be  amended  by  striking  from  the  revised  schedule  the  words 
"but  not  less  than  40  cents  per  pound"  of  line  19,  page  7.  The  tax 
per  pound  of  celluloid  is  a  variable  one  in  its  incidents  for  the  reason 
that  the  weight  of  the  celluloid  used  never  runs  uniform;  the  celluloid 
plates  from  which  articles  are  made  will  not  be  of  uniform  but  of 
varying  weight,  with  corresponding  variation  consequently  in  duties 
assessed. 

Also,  the  specific  rate  is  not  a  rational  one,  owing  to  great  difficulty, 
if  not  practical  impossibility,  of  arriving  at  the  weight  when  celluloid 
is  used  in  connection  with  other  materials. 

Thirty-five  per  cent  duty  ad  valorem  should  be  a  sufficiently  high 
duty,  but  if  this  is  not  agreed  to,  then  it  would  be  preferable  to  offset 
the  weight  limit  by  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  ad  valorem  duty, 
so  as  to  avoid  a  compound  rate. 


SCHEDULE  A.  67 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraphs  32  to  88,  inclusive  (H.  R.  20182,  p.  50, 
lines  14,  15,  16  of  p.  13). — Olive  oil  should  be  provided  for  at  a  rate 
per  gallon  instead  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  say  about  10  to  20  cents 
per  gallon.  If  a  specific  duty  is  placed  on  oil  it  will  conduce  to  the 
importation  of  the  best  grades  of  oil  and  will  to  a  great  extent  shut 
out  the  many  deleterious  oils  now  being  imported  for  consumption. 
Also  it  will  save  endless  amount  of  litigation  as  to  the  value  of  the  oil. 

The  specific  rate  per  gallon  should  apply  on  all  olive  oil,  irrespective 
of  the  capacity  of  the  containers. 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  67  (H.  R.  20182,  p.  53).— This  para- 
graph should  be  amended  by  omitting  the  phrase  "and  other  toilet 
articles"  in  line  10  of  page  15.  This  is  too  general  an  application,  as 
combs,  brushes,  soaps,  etc.,  while  specifically  provided  for  under 
other  provisions  of  the  tariff,  are  also  covered  by  this  phrase.  Specific 
designation  should  be  sought  as  far  as  possible  and  misleading 
generalities  omitted. 

We  recommend  that  hi  paragraph  53,  line  7,  reading  "if  containing 
alcohol,  60  cents  per  pound  and  50  cents  per  ad  valorem,"  be  changed 
to  "50  per  cent  ad  valorem,"  without  a  specific  weight  duty;  "if  not 
containing  alcohol,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem"  instead  of  60  per  cent. 
At  the  time  the  60  cents  per  pound  was  assessed  in  the  1909  tariff, 
paragraph  67,  the  contention  was  that  this  specific- weight  duty  was 
to  onset  the  internal  revenue  on  alcohol  taxed  in  this  country.  Aside 
from  the  fact  that  if  this  is  the  purpose,  60  cents  per  pouna  is  exces- 
sive, and  that  20  per  cent  per  pound  would  serve  to  amply  offset  this 
consideration,  we  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  alcohol  contained  in  such  perfumery  pays  an  internal 
revenue  in  the  country  of  origin,  which  internal  revenue  is  contained 
in  the  selling  price  to  this  country  and  pays  duty  accordingly  ad 
valorem,  the  internal-revenue  tax  in  the  United  States  is  thereby  ipso 
facto  equalized. 

Reference  to  the  Government  statistics  on  the  importations  of 
perfumery  will  show  that  from  England  and  Germany  they  are  insig- 
nificant and  from  France  have  since  1909  not  increased  to  any 
extent,  certainly  not  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  the  population 
of  the  country.  In  fact,  such  reference  will  show  that  the  total 
importation  of  perfumery  at  this  time  is  practically  nil  compared 
with  the  total  consumption — a  sufficient  indication  in  itself  that  the 
rates  imposed  are  not  conducive  to  producing  revenue. 

Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  68  (H.  R.  20182),  Payne  bill,  56.— This 
paragraph  should  be  amended  to  include  all  paint  "whether  contained 
in  lacquered  metal  containers  or  otherwise,  to  correct  the  manifest 
injustice  of  paragraph  195  of  the  Payne  bill. 

'Tariff  act  1909,  paragraph  69  (H.  R.  20182,  paragraph  70).— The 
duty  on  soaps  should  be  ad  valorem  exclusively,  without  specific- 
weight  rate  provision,  for,  owing  to  the  range  of  prices  from  ordinary 
laundry  soaps  to  the  expensive  toilet  soaps,  the  specific  rate  in  the 
amended  House  bill  of  20  cents  per  pound  is  absolutely  prohibitory 
on  the  cheaper  grades,  which  would  otherwise  be  most  used.  It  is 
recommended  that  ad  valorem  rates  be  made  to  apply  on  soaps 
exclusively  of  35  per  cent,  or,  if  this  is  not  approved  on  the  very 


68  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

cheap  soaps,  that  a  specific  duty  exclusively  be  assessed  on  this  low 
grade  of  merchandise  instead  of  the  compound  duties  proposed  in 
H.  R.  20182,  paragraph  70. 

Respectfully,  PARK  &  TILFORD. 

ALFRED  H.  SMITH  Co. 

GEO.  BORGFELDT    &    Co. 

FRANK  M.  BRINDLE. 
Presented  by — 


1 


Mr.  C.  S.  WELCH,  of  Park  &  Tilford. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  DODGE  &  OICOTT  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK 
CITY,  IMPORTERS  AND  MANUFACTURERS  OF  ESSENTIAL 
OILS,  DRUGS,  AND  CHEMICALS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  2, 1913. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington  D.  C. 

We  have  no  specific  recommendations  to  make  at  this  time  as  to 
changes  in  duties;  but  we  are  vitally  interested  in  the  essential  oil 
paragraphs  of  Schedule  A,  and  are  desirous  of  affording  your  com- 
mittee any  assistance  we  can  to  make  these  paragraphs  reasonable, 
fair,  and  consistent  with  other  correlated  sections  of  tne  tariff.  And 
along  this  line  we  call  your  attention  to  the  question  of— 

Species  as  raw  materials  for  the  domestic  manufacture  of  essential 
oils :  We  have  no  wish  to  oppose  or  bring  in  question  the  levying-of  a 
duty  upon  spices  as  spices — that  is,  as  foods  or  condiments;  but  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  passed  at  the  last  session,  while  doubtless 
intended  to  levy  a  duty  upon  certain  spices  as  condiments,  had  a 
much  farther  reaching  effect. 

For  example,  clove  buds  were  made  dutiable  at  the  specific  rate  of 
2  cents  per  pound.  At  that  time  the  value  of  standard  grades  of 
cloves  was  approximately  10  cents  per  pound,  which  is  about  an 
average  price  under  normal  conditions.  The  proposed  duty,  there- 
fore, was  the  substantial  equivalent  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

On  the  other  hand,  oil  of  cloves,  distilled  from  the  clove  buds,  as  an 
unenumerated  essential  oil  was  to  be  made  dutiable  at  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 

Under  the  present  tariff  the  American  distiller  of  oil  of  cloves  has 
the  protection  of  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  the  oil,  whereas 
his  raw  material,  the  clove  itself,  comes  in  free  of  duty. 

This  house  has  distilled  as  much  as  150,000  pounds  of  clove  oil  per 
annum,  and  it  has  been  able  to  do  so  solely  and  absolutely  because 
the  raw  material  has  been  free  of  duty,  whereas  upon  clove  oil  of 
foreign  manufacture  there  has  been  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Even  as  it  is.  however,  the  oil  is  sold  here  at  next  to  no  profit,  the 
competition  being  extremely  keen;  but  it  is  a  "labor  maker,"  without 
which  it  would  be  practically  impossible  to  keep  an  essential  oil  fac- 
tory in  existence;  and  without  the  protection  we  have  up  to  this  time 
enjoyed  we  should  have  to  abandon  the  industry.  It  is  obvious  that 
with  a  duty  on  the  raw  material  amounting  to  20  per  cent  or  more 
ad  valorem  while  the  manufactured  product  itself  pays  only  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  we  are  not  only  deprived  of  the  protection  we  have 


SCHEDULE  A.  69 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

had,  but  are  placed  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  foreign  manufac- 
turer, who  has  every  advantage  of  us  now  hi  cost  of  labor,  main- 
tenance, and  materials,  besides  having  a  profitable  outlet  for  his 
by-product,  while  here  we  have  none. 

A  large  proportion  of  all  the  clove  oil  distilled  is  used  as  the  basic 
material  in  the  manufacture  of  vanillin,  a  fine  aromatic  chemical. 
Last  year's  bill  reduced  the  duty  on  vanillin  to  10  cents  per  ounce, 
specifically,  in  the  face  of  the  new  duty  proposed  upon  the  raw  material, 
tne  clove  bud.  As  will  doubtless  be  shown  to  your  committee  by  the 
vanillin  manufacturers,  such  a  reduced  rate  of  duty  on  the  finished 
product  would  hardly  be  sufficient  to  protect  the  American  manufac- 
turer even  when  his  vanillin  is  manufactured  from  homemade  oil  dis- 
tilled from  free  cloves.  But  if  the  domestic  vanillin  maker  is  to  have 
the  cost  of  his  raw  material  advanced  while  the  protection  on  his 
manufactured  product  is  cut  in  half,  he  will  simply  have  no  chance 
whatever.  He  will  have  to  abandon  the  industry  or  resort  to  an 
entirely  different  raw  material  which  has  never  been  employed  in  this 
country  and  which  would  yield  no  revenue  whatever  to  the  Govern- 
ment. 

We  simply  ask  for  the  continuance  of  a  reasonable  protection  in  a 
plain  case  where  the  raw  materials  of  a  long  and  well  established  in- 
dustry are  accidentally  spices  but  are  used  for  purposes  entirely  for- 
eign to  the  usual  and  ordinary  employment  of  spices.  The  situation 
is  substantially  the  same  as  above  stated  in  the  case  of  the  somewhat 
less  important  oils  of  pimento,  nutmeg,  and  one  or  two  others  distilled 
from  spices. 

We  venture  to  suggest  further  that,  while  the  essential-oil  section, 
paragraph  51  in  last  year's  bill  was  in  this  respect  an  improvement 
upon  the  Payne  and  preceding  tariffs  (which  specified  by  name  "es- 
sential oils"  that  do  not  and  never  did  exist),  it  showed  clearly  that 
the  provision  was  not  drawn  by  one  having  anything  like  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  subject.  It  mentions  by  name,  first,  oil  of  pepper- 
mint for  discriminative  treatment,  i.  e.,  a  specific  duty  of  25  cents  per 
pound ;  then  it  proceeds  to  enumerate  by  name  over  20  essential  oils 
which,  together  with  "  all  *  *  *  essential  and  distilled  oils,  etc.," 
are  to  come  under  the  horizontal  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Among  the  oils  thus  enumerated  are  many  whose  real  importance 
perhaps  would  warrant  specific  mention  by  name ;  but  there  are  others, 
like  chamomile,  cedrat,  jasmine,  valerian,  and  the  like,  which  are  of 
no  consequence  whatever,  being  imported,  when  at  all,  only  in  the 
pettiest  quantities,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  cedrat  and  jasmine,  being 
little  more  than  curiosities. 

Again,  open  to  criticism  are  such  specifications  as  ' '  anise  or  anise 
seed,"  since  there  is  no  anise  oil  other  than  anise-seed  oil;  "citronella 
or  lemon  grass/'  indicating  two  names  for  the  same  thing,  whereas 
the  two  oils  of  these  names  are  widely  different  in  character  and  value 
and  no  reason  exists  for  linking  them  together;  "rosemary  or  anthoss," 
perpetuated  from  former  tariffs  like  the  foregoing,  in  which  the  expres- 
sion "or  anthoss"  is  altogether  meaningless.  And  there  are  otners. 

We  suggest  that  nothing  substantial  is  gained  by  enumerating  part 
of  a  general  class  in  this  way,  especially  if  the  enumeration  is  un- 
scientific and  includes  members  which  are  neither  important  nor 


70  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

typical,  while  on  the  other  hand  such  an  enumeration  is  apt  to  open 
the  door  to  unnecessary  complications  and  confusion.  We  submit 
that  only  such  oils  should  be  enumerated  by  name  as  are  to  receive 
discriminative  treatment  by  being  assessed  with  special  rates  of  duty 
diff erent  from  the  general  horizontal  rate ;  and  that  the  general  hori- 
zontal class  should  be  covered  by  a  single  definitive  specification 
similar  to  the  one  used  in  paragraph  51  for  the  residuary  portion,  say, 
"all  essential  and  distilled  oils  and  all  combinations  of  same,"  etc. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  while  not  all  essential 
oils  are  distilled,  there  being  several  important  exceptions,  neither  are 
all  distilled  oils  essential  oils. 

DODGE  &  OLCOTT  Co., 
By  CHRISTIAN  BRILSTEIN,  Secretary. 

BEIEF    OF    VERONA    CHEMICAL    CO.,    MANUFACTURERS    OF 

FINE    CHEMICALS,     CUSTOM    DISTILLERS    OF    ESSENTIAL 

OILS. 

NORTH  NEWARK,  N.  J.,  January  2, 1913. 
Hon.  CHAIRMAN  UNDERWOOD, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  beg  to  inclose  briefs  on  paragraphs  5,  22,  51,  54-76, 
of  the  dutiable  list;  also  a  brief  treating  on  "Spices."  In  reading 
same  you  will  note  we  have  not  asked  for  an  increase  (one  exception, 
see  brief  No.  3),  but  simply  to  leave  the  present  duties  remain,  for  the 
reason  that  a  great  number  of  the  raw  materials,  especially  those 
covered  by  paragraphs  23  and  24,  have  been  taken  on  the  tree  list 
and  a  duty  imposed.  This  has  evidently  been  done  for  revenue  pur- 
poses and  to  give  American  manufacturers  of  these  products  a  pro- 
tection, and  we  can  not  object  to  this.  In  return,  therefore,  it  would 
not  he  fair  nor  reasonable  to  lower  duties  on  the  finished  products, 
especially  as  the  duties  now  prevailing,  to  wit,  25  per  cent,  paragraph 
5,  and  20  per  cent,  paragraph  22,  are  not  excessive,  which  is  proven 
by  the  undeniable  fact  that  there  is  a  very  large  importation.  Again, 
the  chemical  manufacturing  industry,  especially  the  one  producing 
high-class  products,  is  laboring  under  rather  difficult  conditions,  and  the 
duties  allowed  for  the  past  years  have  always  been  very  moderate  com- 
pared to  the  45  per  cent  and  60  per  cent  rates  of  the  iron  and  steel  and 
the  textile  industries.  Progress  has  been  comparatively  slow,  and  we 
can  not  but  too  forcibly  state  that  a  further  reduction,  in  the  face  of 
possible  import  duties  on  our  raw  materials,  would  place  the  American 
industry  in  a  very  precarious  position.  Surely  it  is  not  the  intention  of 
Congress  to  do  that.  A  general  downward  revision  may  be  necessary 
and  in  good  order,  but  there  are  exceptions  and  these  are  some  of  them. 

The  writer  will  he  pleased  to  give  testimony  to  the  best  of  his  ability 
any  time  convenient  to  the  committee. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

VERONA  CHEMICAL  Co., 
By  EDWIN  KUTTROFF,  President. 


SCHEDULE   A.  71 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

BRIEF  No.  1. 

Paragraph  5.  This  paragraph  covers  a  whole  line  of  chemical  and  medicinal  prod- 
ucts. In  fact,  a  great  majority  of  the  products  that  do  not  find  special  mention  in 
other  paragraphs  fall  in  under  this  heading.  We  can  truthfully  claim  that  the  pres- 
ent duty  of  25  per  cent  is  very  fair  and  not  too  high,  for  it  is  safe  to  state  that  the 
importation  exceeds  the  domestic  production.  So  long  as  the  paragraph  is  left 
written  in  this  broad  sense  probably  no  exact  figures  can  be  given,  besides  many 
articles  are  imported  without  stating  their  exact  nature  or  composition.  While 
there  may  be  comparatively  few  products  that  can  be  made  here  in  competition 
to  the  imported  goods,  plus  the  proposed  duty  of  15  per  cent,  we  do  not  hesitate  to 
state  that  it  is  the  honest  opinion  of  every  chemical  and  pharmaceutical  manufac- 
turer in  this  country  familiar  with  the  condition  of  the  increased  cost  of  labor,  machin- 
ery, repairs,  and  nearly  every  item  of  expense,  that  a  duty  of  15  per  cent  means  the 
shutting  down  and  ceasing  of  many  a  manufacture  now  in  operation.  A  duty  of 
15  per  cent  will  mean  a  large  importation  of  the  overproduction  from,  especially, 
Germany,  and  that  country  will  certainly  welcome  such  a  move  on  the  part  of  the 
tariff  legislators  of  the  United  States.  We,  as  a  good  many  other  manufacturers, 
have  capital  invested,  have  spent  a  lot  of  time  and  money  for  the  manufacture  of 
products  which  fall  under  this  paragraph,  and  we  respectfully  and  earnestly  request 
that  no  reduction  is  made. 

The  consumption  of  these  products  is  relatively  limited,  the  cost  of  production,  on 
account  of  increased  expenses,  as  everyone  familiar  with  the  manufacture  of  chemicals 
in  the  United  States  will  admit,  is  higher— all  proves  that  we  need  a  protection  of  at 
least  25  per  cent,  and  that  this  rate  is  not  excessive  is,  as  above  stated,  undeniably 
proven  by  the  fact  that  great  numbers  and  quantities  of  these  products  are  now  imported . 
What  argument  can  be  more  convincing  than  this  latter  fact? 

We  have  been  manufacturing  thymol  and  terpin  hydrate  for  several  years,  and,  we 
can  state,  without  any  profit  to  us.  For  example,  on  thymol  the  present  duty  of  25 
per  cent  has  not  been  sufficient  to  offset  the  increased  cost  of  freight  of  the  raw  material 
from  India  to  New  York  against  the  same  from  India  to  Hamburg.  We  are  told  the 
difference  is  about  1  shilling  per  hundredweight.  As  one  gets  only  about  H-l$  pounds 
thymol  from  100  pounds  raw  material,  you  will  note  the  shilling  must  be  added  to  the 
1^-lJ  pounds  finished  product.  Again,  the  resulting  by-product,  an  oily  cake,  finds  a 
very  much  better  market  in  Europe,  due  to  the  relatively  cheap  cattle-food  products 
found  here,  such  as  cottonseed  cake,  etc.  The  consumption  in  this  country  is  equal 
to  about  30.000  pounds — so  you  will  note  how  very  limited  the  manufacture  can  be— 
which  again  increases  the  cost  per  pound.  We  suggest  a  fixed  duty  would  be  more 
satisfactory,  and  propose  as  a  fair  and  reasonable  rate  50  cents  a  pound . 

For  terpin-hydrate  the  same  arguments,  practically,  hold;  the  consumption  is 
about  the  same,  etc.  In  this  case  also  a  fixed  duty  would  be  far  more  satisfactory,  and 
we  propose  10  cents  a  pound  as  a  reasonable  rate. 

BRIEF  No.  2. 

Paragraph  22.  Exactly  the  same  arguments  apply  here  as  we  give  in  the  case  of 
paragraph  5  i^see  Brief  No.  1).  Paragraph  22  is  very  broad  and  far  reaching  in  its 
application,  and  it  is  impossible  to  treat  the  subject  matter  of  this  paragraph  except 
in  a  general  way.  We  can  state  in  addition  in  the  case  of  the  manufacture  of  coal- 
tar  products  or  preparations  which  are  covered  by  this  paragraph  that  the  raw  mate- 
rials used  fall  mostly  under  paragraphs  23  and  24,  and  it  is  proposed  to  take  both  of 
these  off  the  free  list  and  place  a  duty  of  5  per  cent  on  the  products  mentioned  in 
paragraph  23  and  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  on  the  products  mentioned  in  paragraph  24. 
In  other  words,  it  is  proposed  to  lower  the  duties  on  the  finished  products  and  raise 
the  duties  on  the  raw  materials.  This  is  surely  not  in  order  and  we  again  respectfully 
request  and  urge  that  no  reduction  is  made  in  paragraph  22. 

BRIEF  No.  3. 

Paragraph  51.  We  respectfully  request  and  urge  that  after  the  words  "peppermint  25 
cents  per  pound,"  the  following  is  inserted:  "Clove,  pimento  or  allspice,  nutmeg, 
mace,  patchouli,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem."  This  is  altogether  necessary,  for  the  new 
tariff  (see  paragraph  41 )  proposes  a  range  of  duties  on  the  raw  materials  used  for  the  dis- 
tillation of  these  various  oils  which  averages  about  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  A  differ- 
ence of  15  per  cent,  or  a  35  per  cent  duty,  is  therefore  very  fair  and  reasonable.  We 
respectfully  urge  the  committee  to  give  especial  attention  to  this  feature  of  the  bill. 


72  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

BRIEF  No.  4. 

Paragraph  54-  This  paragraph  covers  a  whole  range  of  products,  some  of  which 
must  be  imported  and  others  which  can  be  made  in  this  country.  We  may  state  that 
the  latter  form  a  large  minority.  We  manufacture  two  products  covered  by  this 
paragraph,  namely,  heliotropin  and  terpineol.  We  respectfully  request  and  urge 
that  both  of  these  products  are  taken  out  of  this  paragraph  and  given  specifies  duties 
as  follows:  Heliotropin  50  cents  a  pound,  terpineol  6  cents  a  pound. 

Heliotropin.  The  raw  material  used  for  this  article  is  camphor  oil,  which  under 
the  proposed  tariff  will  pay  a  duty  of  20  per  cent;  paragraph  54  proposes  for  heliotropin 
the  same  rate,  namely,  20  per  cent — this  is  therefore  not  just.  Fifty  cents  a  pound 
equals  about  35  per  cent  of  the  selling  price,  but  as  we  would  have  to  pay  a  duty  of 
20  per  cent  on  the  raw  material,  camphor  oil,  the  same  is  not  excessive. 

Terpineol.  The  present  duty  on  this  article  is  25  per  cent.  We  manufacture  this 
product,  but  owing  to  the  increased  cost  of  production  (the  item  of  labor  enters  here 
largely)  far  more  is  imported  than  we  manufacture.  A  reduction  of  the  present  tariff 
is  therefore  entirely  unnecessary  and  would  be  most  unjust  to  the  manufacturers  of 
this  country,  of  whom  we  are  one. 

BRIEF  No.  5. 

Paragraph  76.  Vanillin.     Present  Payne  rate,  20  cents  per  ounce.     Proposed  rate, 
10  cents  per  ounce. 
We  respectfully  request  and  urge  that  the  present  rate  be  allowed  to  remain: 

(1 )  The  rate  was  reduced  from  80  cents  to  20  cents  per  ounce  in  the  last  tariff — which 
in  itself  is  already  a  tremendous  cut. 

(2)  We  use  the  following  raw  materials:  Cloves,  caustic  potash,  acetic  anhydride, 
bichromate  of  potash,  sulphuric  acid,  benzol. 

(A)  Cloves:  These  have  always  been  on  the  free  list;  it  is  now  proposed  to  place  a 
duty  of  2  cents  per  pound,  which  is  equal  to  about  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

(13)  In  the  case  of  caustic  potash  we  have  a  similar  condition.  This  article  has 
ahvays  been  free;  is  now  to  be  taxed  with  an  import  duty  of  three-fifths  cent  per 
pound . 

(C)  Acetic  anhydride:  The  duty  now  is  2£  cents  per  pound  plus  30  per  cent  for  the 
container  and  there  is  no  change  proposed. 

(D)  Bichromate  of  potash  is  made  here,  and  we  use  the  domestic  article  exclusively. 

(E)  Sulphuric  acid  costs  us  fully  50  to  60  per  cent  more  than  the  price  paid  by  our 
German  competitors. 

(F)  Benzol:  The  proposed  tariff  places  a  duty  of  5  per  cent  on  this  product;  this 
probably  means  the  price  will  advance  nearly  proportionately. 

The  above  is  a  brief  resume  of  the  situation  of  the  point  of  view  of  the  raw  materials 
used  by  us.  The  increased  cost  of  labor,  the  more  expensive  special  machinery  used, 
in  fact  every  item  of  cost  and  expense  is  higher  here  than  abroad.  These  facts  all  go  to 
prove  a  reasonable  tariff  is  absolutely  necessary.  You  will  note  that  the  proposed  bill 
reduces  the  present  tariff  by  50  per  cent,  and  of  the  six  principal  raw  materials  used — 
it  is  proposed  to  take  three  off  the  free  list — and  on  another,  acetic  anhydride,  there  is 
no  decrease,  but  the  present  rate  is  allowed  to  remain  unchanged.  In  view  of  the 
foregoing  we  respectfully  request  that  no  change  be  made  in  the  present  rate  of  20  cents 
per  ounce. 

BRIEF  No.  6. 

The  attention  of  the  committee  is  respectfully  called  to  the  fact  that  a  good  many 
spices,  etc.,  are  used  for  two  purposes  in  this  country. 

First.  As  spices  or  condiments,  and  we  can  not  discuss  these  uses  and  what  effect 
a  duty  will  have  on  the  same. 

Second.  Spices  are  also  the  raw  materials  for  two  very  important  industries  now 
existing  in  the  United  States,  the  distillation  of  essential  oils  and  the  production  of 
vanillin.  The  duties  proposed  in  paragraph  41  equal  about  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 
and  we  claim,  placing  a  burden  of  such  high  duties  on  the  raw  materials  of  two  indus- 
tries, is  altogether  out  of  proposition.  If  it  is  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  propose 
a  tariff  on  spices  used  for  food  and  spice  purposes  then  some  means  should  be  devised 
whereby  those  used  for  manufacturing  purposes  can  enter  free  of  duty  as  before.  They 
could  perhaps  be  made  unfit  for  human  consumption  is  some  way  or  the  manufacturers 
could  use  and  distill  these  raw  materials  under  some  suitable  governmental  control. 
We  understand  in  France  and  German v  the  latter  method  is  used — evidently  with  some 
degree  of  success— otherwise  the  practice  would  not  continue.  It  appears  to  us  that  the 


SCHEDULE   A.  73 

PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

framcrs  of  the  new  bill  had  in  mind  when  the  duties  were  proposed  for  spices  that  these 
articles  are  used  solely  as  spices  and  condiments  and  may  therefore  be  considered  possi- 
bly as  a  luxury,  but  they  evidently  did  not,  at  the  same  time,  consider  the  fact  that 
spices  also  form  the  basis  of  two  important  chemical  industries.  We  respectfully 
request  and  urge  that  this  feature  of  the  matter  is  carefully  considered  and  if  the  various 
duties  proposed  must  remain  on  the  spices  used  by  the  food  and  spice  trade,  then 
some  means  and  method  be  introduced  and  decided  upon,  whereby  spices,  etc., 
imported  and  used  for  distilling  and  manufacturing  purposes  can  come  in  free  of 
duty. 

BEIEF  OF  THE  COLUMBIA  WESTEEN  MILLS  IN  RE  OILS. 

WEST  PULLMAN,  CHICAGO,  ILL.,  January  3,  1913. 
Mr.  JAMES  R.  MANN, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  G. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  you  are  probably  aware  a  hearing  is  going  to  be 
given  on  January  6  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee presiding,  on  the  Underwood  Bill,  on  which  there  is  a  proposed 
duty  of  one-fourth  cent  per  pound  on  soya  bean  oil  and  5  cents  per 
gallon  on  China  wood  oil. 

As  you  will  probably  remember,  this  matter  was  discussed  during 
March,  April,  1912,  when  the  above  bill  passed  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

We  can  not  see  any  reason  why  any  amount  of  duty  should  be 
assessed  on  these  oils,  because  the  same  are  raw  materials  for  paint 
and  varnish  industry  of  this  country  and  both  these  oils  are  not 
crushed  here. 

The  assessment  of  any  amount  of  duty  on  such  raw  materials  will 
place  the  consumers  in  a  very  disadvantageous  position  in  buying 
these  materials  in  the  future. 

Our  object  in  writing  you  is  to  protest  against  such  assessment 
of  duty  on  these  items,  leaving  them  free  as  they  now  are. 

Attached  we  give  you  some  information  covering  these  two  oils 
which  is  self-explanatory,  and  anything  you  can  do  to  leave  their 
entry  free  into  this  country  without  duty  will  be  appreciated  by  us. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

COLUMBIA  WESTERN  MILLS, 
F.  B.  REYNOLDS,  Manager. 


[Inelosure.] 
CHINA  NUT  OIL  (CHINA  WOOD  OIL). 

China  wood  oil  is  crushed  from  nut.  which  is  a  production  of  southern  China, 
Hankow  district  being  the  center.  This  nut  tree  is  only  grown  in  southern  China 
and  not  in  any  other  place  in  the  world.  We  heard  that  experimental  plantation  of 
this  nut  tree  was  made  in  this  country,  but  such  experiment  was  a  total  failure. 

We  tried  to  import  the  nut  instead  of  the  oil,  to  be  crushed  in  this  country,  but 
we  were  not  successful. 

Every  year,  about  the  beginning  of  October,  the  nut  is  picked  from  the  tree  by 
natives  in  southern  China  and  crushed  to  obtain  the  oil.  Then  it  is  sold  to  refineries 
around  Hankow,  by  whom  the  oil  is  refined,  and  shipped  to  this  country.  Usually 
the  new  crop  oil  is  shipped  from  China  by  the  end  of  October  or  early  November. 
It  generally  takes  90  days  before  the  oil  arrives  in  this  country  from  China. 


74 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  3— OILS. 

As  long  as  the  nut  tree  can  not  be  raised  in  this  country,  we  do  not  think  that  any 
industry  for  crushing  of  this  nut  can  be  established,  especially  if  you  take  into  con- 
sideration the  fact  that  we  were  not  successful  even  to  import  the  nut  for  crushing 
purpose  here. 

We  are  unable  to  obtain  statistics  for  the  production  of  nut  in  China,  because 
there  is  no  way  of  obtaining  any  figure,  but  we  state  below  the  quantity  and  value 
of  importation  of  this  oil  into  this  country  for  the  past  few  years:  , 


Amount. 

Value. 

1907...              

Gallons. 
2,515,643 

$1,044,016 

1908          

1,874,217 

857,  782 

1909  

2,897,319 

1,151,016 

1910          

2,494,896 

846,635 

1911  

5,840,739 

2,  204,  016 

January-August  1912  

3,045,758 

1,591,926 

SOYA    BEAN    OIL. 

Soya  bean  oil  is  crushed  from  soya  bean,  which  is  a  product  of  North  Manchuria, 
China. 

This  oil  has  been  used  by  soap  manufacturers  in  extensive  quantities  about  three 
years  ago,  when  cotton-seed  oil,  tallow,  grease,  and  other  soap  materials  were  very 
high. 

We  heard  that  experimental  plantations  were  made  in  this  country  with  soya  bean 
in  the  past,  but  the  result  was  not  successful. 

There  even  might  be  a  small  quantity  of  soya  bean  raised  in  this  country,  but  such 
quantity  is  used  for  cattle  feeding,  fertilizer,  etc.,  and  is  not  enough  for  crushing  use 
to  obtain  oil.  Therefore  the  only  way  to  obtain  soya  bean  oil  is  to  import  from  foreign 
countries. 

The  production  of  soya  bean  in  North  Manchuria  averages  around  1,000,000  tons 
of  2,240  pounds  per  year.  About  40  per  cent  of  this  quantity  is  now  exported  to 
Japan,  where  it  is  used  for  aoy  making,  or  feeding  purpose,  as  well  as  for  crushing  use 
to  make  soya  bean  oil.  About  20  per  cent  is  consumed  by  China  itself;  about  another 
20  per  cent  is  crushed  in  northern  China,  thereby  obtaining  oil  and  cake;  about  5  per 
cent  will  be  kept  by  farmers  for  sowing  use  for  next  season.  The  balance  of  about  15 
per  cent  is  for  export  to  European  crushers.  In  Europe  soya  bean  is  used  for  crusher 
purpose  to  obtain  soya  bean  oil  and  soya  oil  cake. 

Soya  bean  has  only  been  introduced  to  European  crushers  since  1909.  Therefore 
it  is  still  quite  a  new  product  to  them. 

There  is  no  industry  in  this  country  for  crushing  soya  bean .  Therefore  the  soya  bean 
oil  used  by  soap  manufacturers  lias  to  be  imported  as  above  stated  from  foreign 
countries. 

Below  are  the  statistics  of  import  into  this  country. 


Amount. 

Value. 

August   1909   to  Juno    1910 

Pounds. 

1,020,000 

July  1910,  to  June,  1911        

41,106,000 

2,  560,  000 

Julv  1911    to  December  19)1        .   .                             

11,286,000 

670,000 

January   1912  to  \ugust  1912 

20,  208,  905 

1,113,483 

P.  S. — Under  present  tariff  then-  is  a  duty  of  45  cents  per  bushel  on  soya  bean 
which  is  a  prohibitive  rate.  If  there  is  a  small  number  of  farmers  who  are  raising 
soya  beans  in  this  country  they  are  well  protected  under  the  above  prohibitive  duty 
on  soya  beans. 


SCHEDULE   A.  75 

PARAGRAPH  3— DLLS. 
STATEMENT  OF  M.  B.  SNEVILY,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  If  the  committee  please,  a  provision  should  be  made 
in  your  tariff  to  cover  vegetable  oils  and  seeds  met  with  elsewhere  and 
which  are  now  named  under  either  the  similitude  clause  or  under  the 
paragraph  "Not  otherwise  specified,"  the  result  of  which  is  that  an 
inferior  oil  or  a  seed  which  we  use  to  produce  an  oil  to  be  used  as  a 
substitute  for  a  staple,  will  pay  in  some  cases  the  same  duty  and  in 
other  cases  more  duty  than  the  staple  itself. 

This  fact  prevents  the  use  of  substitutes,  because  it  is  well  recog- 
nized in  the  trade  that  a  buyer  will  never  pay  for  a  substitute  the 
same  price  for  which  he  can  obtain  a  staple. 

The  duties  on  vegetable  oils  and  seeds,  in  my  opinion,  should  be 
specific  and  not  ad  valorem  for  several  reasons.  One  reason  is  that  a 
specific  duty  will  do  away  entirely  with  undervaluation.  It  will  also 
absorb  any  difference  in  market  values  of  the  different  markets  of 
the  world. 

Furthermore,  in  this  country,  where  we  import  a  seed  we  import  it 
to  obtain  the  oil.  The  value  of  that  seed  depends  upon  the  percent- 
age of  oil  which  it  contains  and  the  quality  of  the  oil  that  we  can 
secure. 

Ad  valorem  duties  increase  the  assessment  on  the  consumer  when 
the  market  advances.  For  example,  take  table  olive  oil,  a  fair 
quality  of  which  was  obtainable  a  year  ago  at  80  cents  a  gallon.  I 
am  not  alluding  to  the  class  of  oil  that  you  would  use  yourself  on  your 
own  table,  but  to  a  fair  grade  of  wholesome  oil.  The  duty  on  that 
oil  in  barrels  is  40  cents  a  gallon,  equivalent  to  50  per  cent,  of  course. 
To-day  that  same  grade  of  oil  will  cost  $1.20  a  gallon.  An  equivalent 
of  50  per  cent  would  make  the  duty  60  cents  instead  of  40  cents,  and 
that  20  cents  a  gallon  increase  is  paid  by  the  consumer,  not  to  the 
producer  but  to  the  Government. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  that  respect  you  are  satisfied  with  our  bill, 
because  in  all  our  seed  laws  the  duties  provided  are  specific. 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  If  my  recollections  are  correct,  you  provide  in  some 
places  an  ad  valorem  duty,  not  on  olive  oil,  but  on  some  of  the  seeds 
covered  in  the  schedule. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  seeds  themselves  or  the  oil  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  The  seeds  and  oils. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  They  are  in  the  agricultural  schedule  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  The  seeds  are  in  the  agricultural  schedule;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  We  have  not  reached  that  yet. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  To  what  paragraph  are  you  particularly  re- 
ferring ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  I  am  not  referring  to  any  particular  paragraph,  but 
am  on  the  general  subject  of  vegetable  oils  and  seeds. 

Fluctuations  in  these  commodities  are  sometimes  very  violent. 
Prices  have  been  steadily  advancing  for  several  years — in  fact,  are 
continuing  to  advance.  As  an  illustration  of  what  we  have  in  the 
way  of  fluctuations,  linseed  oil  sold  a  short  time  ago  for  95  cents  and 
is  now  being  sold  for  40  cents  a  gallon.  Coconut  oil,  of  which  we 
have  sold  hundreds  of  tons  at  4£  cents  a  pound — and  which  I  con- 
sidered extremely  high  at  6  cents  a  pound — has  sold  during  the  past 


76  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  3— OILS. 

three  years  for  10  cents  a  pound,  and  7£  cents  a  pound  has  been  con- 
sidered a  low  price. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  you  in  favor  of  a  duty  on  coconut  oil  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  Not  unless  that  duty  can  be  sufficient  to  overcome 
the  difference  in  cost  of  transportation  and  manufacture  in  this 
country.  There  is  a  certain  amount  of  coconut  oil  made  in  the 
United  States,  but  that  is  made  for  a  particular  purpose.  It  is  not 
the  oil  which  is  sold  to  the  soap  makers.  The  oy-product  of  that 
oil  is  what  is  sold  to  the  soap  makers. 

Commercial  olive  oil  is  used  in  the  industries,  tanning  of  leather, 
dressing  of  worsteds  and  woolens.  When  we  paid  a  duty  of  25  per 
cent,  we  considered  the  oil  high  at  65  cents  a  gallon,  including  that 
25  per  cent  duty.  To-day  we  consider  olive  oil  at  65  cents  a  gallon, 
without  any  duty,  as  a  safe  investment.  A  low  price  or  an  average 
price  is  80  cents,  and  a  high  price  is  90  to  95  cents.  Coconut  oil  at 
present  pays  no  duty  at  all,  and  neither  does  commercial  olive  oil. 
As  illustrating  the  advance  which  has  taken  place  in  these  oils,  prior 
to  the  enactment  of  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill  olive  oil  could  not  be 
imported  into  the  United  States  except  upon  payment  of  40  cents  a 
gallon  duty,  if  the  cost  at  port  or  the  place  of  origin  exceeded  60  cents 
per  gallon,  and  now  it  is  seldom  if  ever  that  we  can  get  olive  oil  at 
60  cents  a  gallon. 

That  simply  illustrates  the  advance  in  values.  I  will  hardly  take 
the  liberty  to  suggest  to  your  honorable  committee  the  rates  of  duty 
that  should  be  assessed  on  these  various  oils  and  seeds,  but  I  would 
like  to  call  a  few  facts  to  your  attention.  The  imports  of  vegetable 
oils  and  seeds,  dutiable  and  free,  in  the  year  1910  aggregated  about 
$25,000,000  to  $27,000,000;  in  the  year  1911  practically  $65,000,000. 
Ocean  freights  are  an  item  that  has  to  be  considered  on  this  proposi- 
tion, particularly  of  recent  years  when  the  rates  have  advanced  to 
the  extent  that  they  have.  A  ton  of  seed  occupies  55  cubic  feet. 
We  have  just  paid  $6.10  per  ton  on  an  import,  which  figures  out  11 
cents  per  cubic  foot.  The  product  of  that  ton  of  seed  in  oil,  on  an 
average,  would  run  from  eighty  to  a  hundred  gallons.  Allow  that  it 
is  a  hundred  gallons  or  two  barrels;  the  cubic  space  occupied  by  that 
two  barrels  would  be  20  feet,  which  at  11  cents  per  foot  is  $2.20. 
You  will  therefore  perceive  that  as  freight  room  on  steamship  is  sold 
by  the  cubic  space  occupied  by  cargo  that  a  domestic  manufacturer 
would  be  obliged  to  pay  $2.00  more  for  the  product  of  1  ton  than 
the  foreign  manufacturer.  We  consider  the  outlay  on  a  ton  of 
seed  as  practically  $10.  That  is,  from  the  time  a  ton  of  seed  is  landed 
on  the  dock  until  we  finish  its  manufacture  into  oil,  meal,  or  cake  the 
cost  of  it  is  approximately  $10.  In  some  cases  it  is  less;  in  others 
more.  That  represents  the  amount  which  we  spend  on  every  ton 
of  seed  which  we  import. 

An  importer  will  bring  to  this  market  the  oil  content  of  that  ton  of 
seed,  and  it  will  cost  him  not  over  50  cents  expenses  here.  It  may 
cost  him  nothing.  If  he  has  a  free  lighterage  clause,  the  oil  may  be 
discharged  from  the  steamer,  and  the  railroad  company  absorbs  the 
charge.  1  le  may  have  weighing  and  sampling,  but  it  will  not  cost  him 
over  50  cents.  In  other  words,  the  man  who  imports  oil  will  spend 
50  cents  on  wluit  lie  gets  out  of  a  ton,  while  a  domestic  manufacturer 
will  spend  $10.  If  he  brings  the  cake  or  meal  here,  which  seldom 


SCHEDULE  A.  77 

PARAGRAPH  3— FORMALDEHYDE. 

if  ever  is  done,  he  may  make  an  outlay  possibly  of  another  dollar. 
Increased  consumption  has  steadily  advanced  prices.  It  is  a  problem 
for  all  manufacturers  who  are  consumers  of  oils  and  fats,  making  it 
very  difficult  for  them  to  compute  costs  or  establish  any  standard  of 
values.  It  seems  to  me  that  relief  must  necassarily  come  by  substi- 
tuting for  these  staple  articles  some  of  the  oils  that  are  used  elsewhere 
in  the  world.  This,  to  my  mind,  can  be  best  accomplished  by  offering 
to  those  who  are  willing  to  promote  the  use  of  these  oils  an  opportu- 
nity to  do  so  at  a  fair  margin  of  profit.  Scarcity— r-crop  failures 
invariably  result  in  higher  prices.  The  consumer,  if  he  is  enter- 
ing goods  on  an  ad  valorem  rate,  has  a  further  hardship  beside  that 
of  increased  values  through  scarcities.  By-products  of  these  seeds 
are  seldom,  if  ever,  brought  to  the  United  States.  In  fact,  in  most 
places  where  produced  they  are  of  more  value  than  they  are  here. 
That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Any  questions  ? 

No  response. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Thank  vou,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  cottonseed  oil  and  olive  oil  oftentimes  used  inter- 
changeably for  the  same  purposes  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  Not  if  the  Department  of  Agriculture  can  locate  it, 
unless  so  branded. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  know,  but 

Mr.  SNEVILY  (interposing).  There  are  mixtures  that  are  branded 
as  a  mixture  of  olive  oil  and  cotton  oil. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  prepared  so  that  the  ordinary  person  who  is 
not  an  expert  could  not  tell  the  difference  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  Personally,  I  had  rather  have  a  high  grade  of  cotton 
oil  than  a  low  grade  of  olive. 

Mr.  HILL.  For  food  purposes  ? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  One  is  free  and  the  other  pays  duty? 

Mr.  SNEVILY.  Yes,  sir. 

FORMALDEHYDE. 

STATEMENT     SUBMITTED     BY     PERTH     AMBOY     CHEMICAL 
WOKKS,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

PERTH  AMBOY  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 

New  York,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  petition  that  formaldehyde,  40  per  cent  solu- 
tion, also  commercially  called  formalin,  be  dutiable  at  1$  cents  per 
pound  specific;  paraformaldehyde,  solid,  95  per  cent  pure,  be  dutiable 
at  7  cents  per  pound  specific.  Formaldehyde,  containing  40  per  cent 
formaldehyde,  is  an  aqueous  solution,  and  paraformaldehyde  is  a 
polymerized  formaldehyde,  formed  by  evaporation  of  the  aqueous 
solution  of  formaldehyde,  an  amorphous  solid  product  95  per  cent 
pure. 


78  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— FORMALDEHYDE. 

Both  are  powerful  antiseptic  disinfectants  and  preservatives, 
employed  in  a  number  of  ways,  separately  or  in  different  combinations. 

Formaldehyde  is  produced  by  the  oxidation  or  partial  combustion 
of  methyl  alcohol  by  an  elaborate  process  of  purifying  crude  wood 
alcohol. 

The  apparatus  and  plant  necessary  for  the  production  of  formalde- 
hyde, consisting  chiefly  of  large  expensive  copper  stills  and  fittings, 
etc.,  are  correspondingly  higher  in  cost  in  the  United  States  than  in 
other  countries,  requiring  a  larger  investment  of  capital,  affecting 
overhead  charges,  including  interest,  insurance,  and  depreciation. 

The  price  of  formaldehyde  and  paraformaldehyde  is  governed  by 
the  price  of  crude  wood  alcohol.  The  price  of  wood  alcohol  is  largely 
regulated  by  what  the  wood-alcohol  producers  secure  for  their  by- 
products, namely,  acetate  of  lime  and  charcoal.  For  acetate  of  lime 
a  relatively  uniform  market  exists,  while  for  charcoal  great  fluctu- 
ations at  times  take  place,  on  account  of  the  varying  demand  on  the 
part  of  the  iron  industry,  in  which  charcoal  is  mostly  consumed.  Low 
prices  of  charcoal  almost  always  mean  higher  prices  for  wood  alcohol. 
The  price  of  wood  alcohol  is  also  affected  by  tne  demand  and  supply, 
thus  leaving  the  manufacturer  of  formaldehyde  at  the  mercy  of  rather 
erratic  fluctuating  market  conditions,  as  far  as  the  supply  of  his  raw 
material  is  concerned.  On  one  side  the  constantly  increasing  demand 
for  wood-alcohol  products  and  on  the  other  the  fact  that  our  depleted 
forests  are  not  being  replanted  tends  toward  a  marked  increase  in  the 
value  of  all  wood-alcohol  products. 

The  Canadian  competition,  with  its  lower  cost  of  labor  and  immense 
resources  of  undepleted  forests,  has  cheaper  raw  material  for  the  manu- 
facture of  wood  alcohol  at  its  disposal. 

As  pioneers  of  the  formaldehyde  industry  in  this  country,  we  there- 
fore petition  that  the  adequate  rate  of  duty  on  formaldehyde  of  1J 
cents  per  pound  specific,  paraformaldehyde  7  cents  per  pound  specific, 
be  established,  so  that  in  case  the  reciprocity  question  between  the 
United  States  and  Canada  should  at  any  time  be  reopened  and  con- 
cessions on  the  United  States  import  rates  of  duty  be  agreed  to  it  will 
not  endanger  the  American  formaldehyde  industry. 

The  Canadian  competition  in  seeking  the  nearest  market  as  an  out- 
let for  its  formaldehyde  surplus  which  can  not  be  consumed  at  home 
may  cause  ruinous  competition  in  the  United  States,  which  could  not 
be  checked,  as  our  customs  laws  do  not  embody  any  "dumping" 
provision. 

Approximate  revenue  estimates. 

Payne- Aldrich  Tariff  Act  1909: 

Paragraph  3:  Paraformaldehyde,  basis  100  per  cent  pure,  25  per  cent 

ad  valorem,  25,000  pounds,  at  1\  cents  per  pound $1,  812.  50 

Paragraph  3:  Formaldehyde,  40  per  cent  solution,  25  per  cent  ad 

valorem,  250,000  pounds,  at  2  cente  per  pound 5,000.  00 

Modified  duty  suggestion: 

Paraformaldehyde.  25,000  pounds,  at  7  cents  per  pound 1,  750.  00 

Formaldehyde,  500,000  pounds,  at  \\  cents  per  pound 7,500.00 

We  therefore  petition  that:  Formaldehyde  40  per  cent  solution  be 
dutiable  at   1  \  cents  per  pound;  paraformaldehyde,  solid,  be  dutiable 
at  7  cents  per  pound. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

PERTH  AM  BOY  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 
HUGO  Du  Bois,  Treasurer. 


SCHEDULE   A.  79 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

ALKALIES. 

BRIEF  OF  JOHN  F.  QUEENY,  PRESIDENT  MONSANTO  CHEMICAL 
WORKS,  ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Pursuant  to  your  notice  of  tariff  hearings  of  December 
11,  1912,  we  beg  to  say  that  we  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  a 
limited  number  of  medicinal  and  fine  chemicals,  most  of  which,  up 
to  a  few  years  ago,  were  manufactured  exclusively  in  Europe — 
principally  in  Germany — and  sold  in  the  United  States  at  materially 
higher  prices  than  are  now  ruling,  the  reduction  due  entirely  to  our 
competition. 

It  is  no  unusual  procedure  for  the  foreign  chemical  manufacturers 
to  maintain  high  prices  here,  so  long  as  they  have  no  competition, 
but  immediately  the  manufacture  of  a  product  is  undertaken  here, 
the  price  is  dropped  to  a  point  which  makes  its  manufacture  prac- 
tically unprofitable  in  an  endeavor  to  discourage  the  new  manufac- 
turer. This  they  are  enabled  to  do,  and  at  a  profit  to  themselves, 
because  they  can  maintain  high  prices  at  home,  due  to  their  com- 
binations— a  fact  well  known — and  dump  their  surplus  production 
here  in  competition  with  us. 

To  illustrate:  The  selling  price  of  phenacetin  (acetphenetidin) — 
classified  under  paragraph  65 — in  the  United  States  in  wholesale 
quantities  was  $12  per  pound  for  17  years,  up  to  and  including  the 
year  1906,  during  the  time  it  was  manufactured  exclusively  in 
Europe.  The  patent  expired  during  1906,  and  in  1907  its  manufac- 
ture was  taken  up  by  us,  with  the  result  that  the  price  in  the  United 
States  to-day,  in  wholesale  quantities,  is  about  90  cents  per  pound, 
as  against  $12  per  pound  six  years  ago,  and  $1.15  per  pound  the 
year  following. 

Phenolphthalein — also  imported  under  paragraph  65 — was  manu- 
factured exclusively  in  Europe  until  about  three  years  ago,  and 
was  sold  in  this  country  in  wholesale  quantities  at  $2.15  to  $2.75 
per  pound.  It  is  now  manufactured  by  us  in  competition  with  the 
European  manufacturers,  with  the  result  that  the  wholesale  selling 
price  is  now  $1.20  to  $1.25  per  pound,  almost  one-half  the  price 
previously  obtained  here  by  them.  Nevertheless,  thousands  of 
pounds  are  still  coming  in  from  Europe. 

The  manufacturers  of  fine  and  medicinal  chemicals  are  perhaps 
under  greater  expense  proportionately  to  the  amount  of  business 
done  than  any  other  line  01  manufacture.  They  must  always  mam- 
tain,  at  a  considerable  cost,  a  research  laboratory,  with  no  assured 
compensatory  results  to  offset  such  cost.  They  must  keep  pace  with 
the  changes  that  are  constantly  taking  place  in  processes  of  manu- 
facture, which  changes  often  make  obsolete  the  machinery  or 
apparatus  then  in  use.  This  necessitates  a  complete  change  in  the 
character  of  the  machinery  or  apparatus  at  a  considerable  cost,  and 
as  part,  and  very  often  the  greater  part  of  the  machinery  and  appara- 
tus required  in  an  installation,  must  be  imported  from  Europe,  the 
manufacturers  of  fine  chemicals  start  out  with  an  investment  of  at 


80  TAKIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

least  45  per  cent  more  than  the  European  manufacturers  in  machinery 
and  apparatus  alone,  as  comparatively  little  of  the  machinery  or 
apparatus  required  in  this  industry  is  now  manufactured  in  the 
United  States. 

Chemists  who  are  satisfied  with  a  salary  of  $600  to  $900  a  year 
in  Europe — Germany  and  Switzerland  particularly — demand  $1,800 
to  $3,000  a  year  under  similar  conditions  of  employment  in  the  United 
States.  The  young  men  who  graduate  as  chemists  from  our  uni- 
versities demand  a  salary  of  $900  the  very  first  year  they  are  out  of 
college,  while  in  Europe  such  graduates  are  glad  of  the  opportunity 
to  get  in  a  factory  at  comparatively  little  or  no  compensation,  to 
get  a  start  and  for  the  knowledge  they  acquire  in  such  factories. 

The  manufacture  of  medicinal  chemicals,  even  under  the  present 
tariff,  is  not  in  any  too  good  a  position,  while  Germany  is  spending 
an  enormous  amount  every  year  for  its  development  through  its 
great  universities,  in  which  the  professors  and  the  chemical  factories 
are  working  hand  in  hand  with  enormously  good  results. 

Medicinal  chemicals  reach  the  consumer  in  very  small  quantities, 
and  therefore  any  reduction  in  the  present  rates,  which  we  ask  you 
to  retain,  will  not  affect  the  ultimate  cost  to  them  to  any  appre- 
ciable extent,  but  will  affect  and  discourage  home  manufacture,  and 
at  the  same  time  reduce  the  revenue  now  obtained  by  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

Our  investment  for  the  manufacture  of  the  medicinal  products 
we  now  make  has  been  made  within  the  past  five  years  and  repre- 
sents about  $300,000.  This  investment  was  made  in  good  faith, 
based  on  the  present  tariff  rates,  and  the  benefits  thus  far  obtained 
have  been  more  for  the  consumers  than  for  us,  because  they  have 
obtained  such  products  as  we  manufacture  at  from  25  per  cent  to 
50  per  cent  less  than  the}'  were  paying  when  we  started  manufac- 
turing. We  ask,  therefore,  that  the  raw  materials  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  fine  and  medicinal  chemicals  be  retained  on  the  free 
list  and  the  present  rates  be  also  maintained  on  the  finished  products, 
which  are  commensurate  only  with  the  conditions  now  existing  in 
this  country. 

This  will  enable  us  to  continue  manufacturing,  and  further,  it 
will  encourage  the  manufacture  of  fine  and  medicinal  chemicals  in 
this  country  to  the  ultimate  good  of  our  whole  people. 

We  respectfully  submit  the  following: 

Paragraph,  3. — Alkalies,  alkaloids,  etc.:  Caffeine  being  an  alkaloid 
is  now  classified  and  imported  under  this  paragraph  and  assessed 
at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Caffeine  is  very  largely  imported  into  the  United  States  in  com- 
petition with  home  manufacturers,  and  the  quantity  imported  pays 
a  good  revenue  to  the  Government.  There  should  be  no  change, 
therefore,  in  the  present  rate,  if  tea  siftings — the  raw  material — is 
retained  on  the  free  list. 

With  the  present  rate  of  25  per  cent  on  the  entered  foreign  value 
for  caffeine-- equal  to  70  cents  per  pound— we  can  and  do  compete, 
whereas  if  tea  siftings  the  raw  material—  be  made  dutiable  at  1  cent 
per  pound-  equal  to  about  40  per  cent  of  its  value — as  proposed  in 
H.  K.  201S2,  then  caffeine  should  be  made  dutiable  at  40  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  or  preferably  at  a  specific  rate  of  $1.25  per  pound. 


SCHEDULE   A.  81 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

We  desire  to  call  attention  to  an  error  in  the  caucus  print  of 
H.  R.  20182,  in  which  appears  the  average  unit  value  of  caffeine 
as  $1.66  and  $1.82  per  pound- (1910),  (1911),  whereas  the  entered 
value  for  the  fiscal  year  1911  is  $3.06  per  pound,  as  shown  in  a  letter 
from  the  Treasury  Department  to  us  under  date  of  April  24,  1912, 
appended  herewith. 

The  actual  market  value  of  caffeine  abroad  in  maximum  quantities 
is  30  marks  per  kilo,  equal  to  $3.24  per  pound. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 
OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY,  DIVISION  OF  CUSTOMS, 

Washington,  April  24,  1912. 
The  MONSANTO  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 

1800  South  Second  Street,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

GENTLEMEN:  Referring  to  your  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  and  to  previous  cor- 
respondence, relative  to  the  market  value  of  caffeine  imported  during  the  past  year, 
I  have  to  advise  you  that  an  investigation  of  this  subject  discloses  that  the  prices 
stated  in  your  letters  as  the  foreign  value  are  approximately  correct. 

The  collector  of  customs  at  New  York  reports  that  due  to  erroneous  quantities 
having  been  recorded  by  the  statistical  clerk  the  quantities  shown  in  the  report 
published  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  are  incorrect.  The  following  is  a  correct  report 
of  the  caffeine  imported  during  the  fiscal  year  1911: 


Quantity 
(pounds). 

Value. 

Quarter  ended: 
Sept.  30,  1910  

10,611 

$33,160 

Dec.  31,  1910  

1,858 

5,680 

Mar.  31,  1911  

4,519 

14,  104 

June  30,  1911  

16,941 

51,067 

33,929 

i  104,011 

1  $3.06$  per  pound. 

The  price  lists  inclosed  with  your  letter  of  January  20  last  are  herewith  returned. 
Respectfully, 

F.  M.  HALSTEAD, 
Chief  Division  of  Customs. 

Paragraph  15. — "  Coal-tar  dyes  or  colors,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  all  other  products 
or  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not  colors,  or  dyes  and  not  medicinal, 
not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section." 

We  strongly  urge  the  retention  of  the  words  "and  not  medicinal" 
in  this  paragraph,  which  were  omitted  in  paragraph  22,  H.  R.  20182, 
although  included  in  the  two  succeeding  paragraphs  of  that  bill,  i.  e., 
paragraphs  23  and  24.  The  classification  "not  colors  or  dyes  and 
not  medicinal"  covers  a  number  of  intermediate  coal-tar  products 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  medicinal  products,  and  the. omission  of 
the  words  "and  not  medicinal"  in  said  paragraph  is  likely  to  cause 
confusion,  trouble,  and  expense  for  the  importer  of  such  intermediate 
coal-tar  products,  with  no  apparent  benefit  to  the  Government. 

The  imports  under  the  classification  of  "not  colors  or  dyes  and  not 
medicinal"  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1910,  amounted  to 
$661,500  and  the  duties  collected  amounted  to  $130,312  as  shown 
in  Schedule  A,  Report  No.  326,  page  205. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 1> 


82 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 
PABAGBAPH  3— ALKALIES. 


Paragraph  65. — (1)  "Medicinal  preparations  containing  alcohol, 
or  in  the  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used,  not  specifically  pro- 
vided for  in  this  section,  fifty-five  cents  per  pound,  but  in  no  case 
shall  the  same  be  less  than  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

The  imports  under  this  paragraph,  paying  the  specific  rate  of  55 
cents  per  pound,  are  apparently  on  the  increase,  as  shown  herewith: 


From  Schedule  A,  Report 
No.  326,  p.  272. 

From  Schedule  A,  Report 
No.  326,  p.  63. 

1890 

1896 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1911 

Pounds     

41,312 
$7,274 

50,268 
$39,583 

147,112 
$133,994 

147,447 
$113,534 

171,342 
$152,659 

157,713 
$138,583 

Value  

In  the  manufacture  of  a  number  of  articles  coming  under  this  para- 
graph the  alcohol  is  transformed  or  lost  during  the  process  of  manu- 
facture and  does  not  appear  in  the  finished  product.  For  that  reason 
we  ask  that  the  wording  of  this  paragraph  (65)  be  retained  as  it  now 
reads;  otherwise  products  so  made  might  come  in  under  other  classfi- 
cations,  with  a  loss  of  revenue  to  the  Government.  Paragraph  18  of 
H.  R.  20182,  introduced  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  would  not 
cover  such  articles,  for  the  reason  that  the  finished  products  do  not 
contain  alcohol,  as  such,  although  alcohol  was  a  raw  material  or  the 
base  for  their  manufacture. 

Paragraph  83. — Vanillin,  present  rate  20  cents  per  ounce. 

Vanillin  is  a  synthetic  chemical  product  manufactured  from  cloves. 
Until  about  15  years  ago  it  sold  in  the  United  States  by  European 
manufacturers  at  So  per  ounce,  now  selling  at  32  to  35  cents  per 
ounce,  due  to  home  competition. 

The  rate  of  duty  was  reduced  in  1909  from  80  cents  per  ounce  to 
20  cents  per  ounce,  the  rate  now  ruling.  The  manufacture  of  this 
product  requires  a  largo  investment  for  the  quantity  manufactured, 
its  process  of  manufacture  is  very  complicated,  and  requires,  besides 
competent  chemists,  a  number  of  dutiable  chemical  products  for  its 
manufacture  in  addition  to  the  raw  material,  cloves. 

Vanillin  enters  almost  entirely  into  the  manufacture  of  perfumery, 
flavoring  extracts,  biscuits,  chocolate,  and  confectionery,  the  price 
of  which  would  not  be  affected  in  the  slightest  by  the  cost  of  vanillin, 
even  if  it  were  two  or  three  times  its  present  selling  price,  because  of 
its  strong  and  far-reaching  flavoring  properties. 

.None  would  therefore  suffer  by  continuing  the  present  rate  of  20 
cents  per  ounce,  with  cloves,  the  raw  material,  on  the  free  list.  If 
cloves  should  be  made  dutiable  at  2  cents  per  pound,  then  vanillin 
should  be  made  dutiable  at  25  cents  per  ounce. 

Pantf/rapTi  679. — Cloves  now  on  free  list.  About  one-third  of  the 
entire  quantity  imported  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  vanillin.  If 
cloves  are  made  dutiable,  a  proportionate  increase  should  be  made 
in  the  rate  on  vanillin  (par.  S3):  for  instance,  if  cloves  are  made 
dutiable  at  1  per  cent  per  pound,  the  duty  on  vanillin  should  be 
increased  2J  cents  per  ounce.  If  cloves  are  made  dutiable  at  2  cents 
per  pound,  then  the  duty  on  vanillin  should  be  increased  5  cents  per 
ounce  over  the  present  rate, 


SCHEDULE  A.  83 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

Paragraph  482. — (Free  list.)  Acid  phthalic  should  be  retained  in 
the  free  list,  as  more  than  60  per  cent  of  the  total  quantity  imported 
is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  medicinal  product  phenolphthalein. 
If  phthalic  acid  be  placed  in  the  dutiable  hst,  as  proposea  in  H.  R. 
20182,  phenolphthalein  should  be  specially  providea  for  at  the  specific 
rate  of  55  cents  per  pound,  as  alcohol  also  enters  into  its  manufacture. 

Phenolphthalein  up  to  three  years  ago  was  manufactured  exclusively 
in  Europe  and  sold  in  the  United  States  at  $2.15  to  $2.75  per  pound 
in  a  wholesale  way.  It  is  now  manufactured  by  us,  with  the  result 
that  the  wholesale  price  is  $1.20  to  $1.25  per  pound,  a  reduction  of 
about  50  per  cent  in  about  three  years,  and  due  entirely  to  our 
competition. 

As  long  as  the  European  manufacturers  had  no  competition  they 
obtained  high  prices  here,  but  with  home  competition  they  lowered 
their  prices  in  an  endeavor  to  make  the  manufacture  here  unprofitable 
and  undesirable. 

Paragraph  500. — *  *  *;  also  quicksilver  flasks  or  bottles,  iron 
or  steel  drums  used  for  the  shipment  of  acids,  of  either  domestic  or 
foreign  manufacture,  which  shall  have  been  actually  exported  from 
the  United  States,  but  proof  of  the  identity  of  such  articles  shall  be 
made  under  general  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury. 

After  the  words  "iron  or  steel  drums"  insert  "exported  empty  or," 
and  after  the  word  "acids"  insert  "or  other  chemical  products," 
making  the  lines  read  "iron  or  steel  drums  exported  empty  or  used  in 
the  shipment  of  acids  or  other  chemical  products  of  either  domestic 
or  foreign  manufacture,"  etc. 

We  request  this  amendment  for  the  reason  that  numerous  chemical, 
products  are  shipped  into  the  United  States  in  such  iron  or  steel  drums 
and  on  which  drums  a  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  levied  under 
paragraph  151  in  addition  to  the  duty  levied  on  the  contents. 

Under  the  present  act  if  such  drums  are  returned  or  exported  to  be 
refilled  and  shipped  back  to  the  United  States,  these  same  olrums  are 
again  assessed  at  the  rate  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem,  the  importers 
paying  duty  twice  or  more  on  the  same  drums  as  often  as  they  are 
returned  and  reshipped  into  the  United  States. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MONSANTO  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 
Per  JOHN  F.  QUEENY,  President. 

ST.  Louis,  January  6,  1913. 

PETITION  OF  HERBERT  WATSON,  OF  CHARLES  COUNTY,  MD., 
REGARDING  DUTY  ON  BICARBONATE  OF  POTASH. 

To  the  Chairman  and  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of 

Representatives: 

The  petition  of  Herbert  Watson,  of  Charles  County  and  State  of 
Maryland,  respectfully  shows  and  represents: 

1.  That  the  specific  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  which,  as  appears 
from  the  first  item  in  paragraph  69  of  the  bill  H.  R.  20182,  originally 
introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  February  15,  1912, 
it  is  proposed  to  place  upon  potash,  bicarbonate  of,  and  carbonate 


84  TABIPP  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

of,  refined,  should  be  made  to  be  at  least  1£  cents  per  pound  on 
bicarbonate  of  potash,  for  the  following  reasons,  that  is  to  say: 

As  proven  by  experience,  it  has  been  impossible  heretofore  to  maintain 
a  plant  and  to  manufacture  and  sell  bicarbonate  of  potash  in  the  United 
States  in  competition  with  importers  of  this  commodity  manufactured 
abroad,  even  with  therateof  duty25per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  it  is  at  pres- 
ent, this  being  about  equal  to  a  specific  duty  of  1£  cents  per  pound. 

The  Diamond  Soda  Works,  a  branch  of  the  Liquid  Carbonic  Co., 
at  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  the  only  concern  in  the  United  States  which  has 
attempted  the  manufacturing  and  marketing  of  this  product,  com- 
menced the  manufacturing  of  bicarbonate  of  potash  in  the  year  1901, 
and  continued  until  the  year  1907,  when  the  enterprise  was  abandoned 
as  being  unprofitable,  for  the  cause  hereinafter  stated. 

As  will  appear  from  the  tabulated  statement  herewith  submitted, 
as  part  hereof,  marked  "Exhibit  A/'  the  importation  of  the  com- 
modity fell  from  162,798  pounds  in  1900,  the  year  before  the  manu- 
facturing in  this  country  commenced,  to  44,850  in  1906,  owing  to  the 
output  from  the  domestic  concern  at  Milwaukee.  In  the  year  when 
the  manufacturing  in  this  country  ceased  importations  were  310,281 
pounds;  and  the  import  value  was  reduced  from  $0.049  in  1906  to 
$0.022  in  1907,  or  considerably  less  than  the  value  per  pound  of  the 
crude  carbonate  of  potash  from  which  the  bicarbonate  of  potash  is 
made.  It  was  the  importation  of  this  large  quantity  in  1907  and  the 
low  price  for  which  trie  commodity  was  offered  on  the  market  that 
made  the  further  manufacturing  in  this  country  wholly  unprofitable 
and  caused  its  abandonment  at  Milwaukee,  as  above  set  forth. 

The  following  year,  1908,  the  value  of  the  imported  commodity  was 
again  put  up,  and  the  selling  price  to  the  trade  became,  for  lack  of  compe- 
tition, about  1  cent  per  pound  greater  than  the  price  of  6£  cents,  for  which 
thedomestic  concern  atMilwaukee  had  beensellingtheproduct  manufac- 
tured there.  The  price  has  continued  to  rule  slightly  above  these  fig- 
ures, there  being  no  longer  competition  with  any  domestic  manufacturer. 

While,  even  at  the  prevailing  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty,  it  was 
found,  after  six  years'  experience,  impossible  to  manufacture  bicar- 
bonate of  potash  at  Milwaukee  in  competition  with  foreign  manufac- 
turers, your  petitioner  believes  it  would  be  possible  to  manufacture 
the  product  at  a  place  nearer  the  Atlantic  coast  if  a  duty  of  at  least  1£ 
cents  per  pound  were  laid  upon  the  imported  commodity;  and,  with 
this  duty,  your  petitioner  is  prepared  to  undertake  such  manufacture 
in  Charles  Count}",  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  where  he  now  owns  land 
about  25  miles  south  of  Washington  City.  For,  not  only  would  the 
expense  of  maintaining  a  plant  and  operating  in  said  Charles  County 
be  less  than  in  Milwaukee,  but  there  would  be  relief  from  the  heavier 
freight  charges  on  the  crude  potash  west,  as  well  as  from  the  return 
charges  on  shipments  of  the  refined  product  east.  Besides,  in  this 
section  of  Maryland,  the  entire  section  south  of  Washington,  there  are 
no  manufacturing  establishments  whatsoever,  and  the  installing  of 
such  plant  and  the  operating  thereof  would  aid  greatly  in  the  develop- 
ment of  this  section,  so  in  need  of  development. 

With  such  a  plant  in  southern  Maryland  your  petitioner  would  be 
able  to  supply  at  least  60  per  cent  of  the  trade  in  this  commodity  in 
the  United  States,  at  a  price  not  exceeding  6^  cents  per  pound.  The 


SCHEDULE  A.  85 

PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

ruling  prices  three  months  ago  were  from  7$  to  1\  cents  per  pound, 
ex  dock,  New  York,  although  in  some  cases  contracts  for  1912  have 
been  made  at  $6.87  per  100  pounds. 

Thus  consumers  would  be  benefited  by  the  imposition  of  a  duty 
which  would  make  it  possible  and  profitable  to  manufacture  this  com- 
modity here,  while  at  the  same  time  the  revenue  to  the  Government 
would  increase. 

For  instance,  take  the  275,204  pounds  imported  in  1912,  as  appears 
from  "Exhibit  A"  herewith,  as  the  quantity  fairly  demanded  by  the 
trade  in  this  country  in  a  year.  Selling  at  6£  cents,  as  against  the 
present  ruling  price  of  1\  cents  per  pound,  there  would  be  a  saying  to 
the  consumers  of  $2,752.04;  and  (conceding  that  the  domestic  con- 
cern would  supply  60  per  cent  of  this  quantity),  as  against  the  revenue 
from  the  importation  of  the  entire  quantity  at  \  cent  duty  per  pound, 
amounting  to  $1,386,  we  should  have,  from  the  40  per  cent,  or  110,082 
pounds,  imported  with  a  duty  of  1£  cents  per  pound,  revenue  amount- 
ing to  $1,657.23. 

2.  Your  petitioner  respectfully  submits  that  the  figures  given  in  the 
exhibit  herewith,  together  with  what  has  been  hereinbefore  stated  as 
to  the  ability  of  your  petitioner  to  manufacture  at  least  60  per  cent  of 
the  quantity  of  bicarbonate  of  potash  required  by  the  trade  in  the 
United  States,  fairly  indicate  what  would  be  the  decrease  in  importa- 
tions if  the  duty  were  fixed  at  \\  cents  per  pound,  thus  enabling  your 
petitioner  to  establish  his  plant  in  southern  Maryland  and  to  manu- 
facture the  commodity,  as  hereinbefore  stated.     Of  course,  if  others 
should  be  similarly  encouraged  to  engage  in  the  work  of  manufac- 
turing the  product  the  result  might  be  no  further  importations.     At 
best  the  total  revenue  from  such  importations  under  present  condi- 
tions is  not  large,  as  appears  from  "Exhibit  A." 

There  are  no  secrets  about  the  manufacture  and  use  of  bicarbonate 
of  potash.  The  cost  of  the  plant,  machinery,  and  apparatus  is  approxi- 
mately $10,000.  The  commodity  is  made  by  treating  carbonate  of 
potash  in  solution  with  carbonic-acid  gas  and  crystallizing  the  product, 
which  involves  the  production  of  carbonic-acid  gas  on  a  commercial 
basis ;  and  it  requires  from  12  to  14  days  to  crystallize  and  prepare  the 
product  for  use.  It  must  be  chemically  pure  and  answer  to  all  the 
requirements  of  the  United  States  Pharmacopoeia.  All  crude  mate- 
rial is  imported  duty  free.  Bicarbonate  of  potash  is  used  principally 
by  manufacturers  of  patent  medicines  and  by  baby  food  and  con- 
densed milk  manufacturers.  It  is  rarely  sold  by  retail  druggists, 
except  in  small  quantities  as  a  component  part  of  physicians'  pre- 
scriptions. Therefore,  it  enters  as  a  very  small  fraction  into  the  cost 
of  any  article  or  compound. 

3.  In  submitting  the  aforegoing  statements  and  estimates  your 
petitioner  has  relied,  both  upon  a  publication  by  the  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  from  which  the  tabulated 
statement  herewith,  marked  "Exhibit  A,"  was  taken  by  courtesy 
of  the  officials  of  that  bureau,  and  upon  knowledge  and  information 
gained  from  his  experience  and  work  as  a  chemist,  as  an  inventor 
who  has  made  discoveries  in  applied  chemistry,  and  as  a  manufac- 
turer.    He  was  superintendent  and  chemical  engineer  of  the  Diamond 
Soda  Works,  at  Milwaukee,  hereinbefore  mentioned,  where  he  in- 
stalled the  plant  for  the  manufacturing  of  bicarbonate  of  potash,  and 


86 


TARIFF  HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  3— ALKALIES. 

operated  it  for  two  years,  at  the  end  of  which  period  he  had  charge 
of  the  works  of  this  company  at  Pittsburgh,  manufacturing  carbQnic- 
acid  gas  and  Epsom  salts.  Later,  he  was  engaged  by  a  concern  in 
Chicago  in  the  matter  of  manufacturing  a  new  and  useful  chemical, 
"acetaldehyde,"  not  previously  manufactured  in  this  country.  He 
resigned  his  position  in  Chicago  about  three  months  ago  with  the 
view  of  establishing  a  plant  for  the  manufacturing  of  bicarbonate  of 
potash  upon  his  land  in  Southern  Maryland,  being  then  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  proposed  to  make  the  tariff  upon  this  product  so 
low  as  one-half  cent  per  pound.  He  has  already  ordered,  and  there 
has  been  delivered,  a  portion  of  the  requisite  machinery  for  his  plant; 
but  pending  the  enactment  into  law  of  the  new  tariff  bill,  and  your 
petitioner  being  fearful  that  the  proposed  rate  of  one-half  cent  per 
pound  upon  this  product  may  be  prescribed,  he  has  been  impelled  to 
abandon  the  further  prosecution  of  his  plans  for  the  present,  to  be 
resumed,  nevertheless,  if  the  duty  shall  be  1^  cents  per  pound. 

In  conclusion  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  your  petitioner 
knows  of  no  reason  why  the  rate  of  duty  on  bicarbonate  of  potash 
should  not  be  maintained  on  equality  with  the  duty  on  permanganate 
of  potash;  the  duty  whereupon,  as  appears  from  said  paragraph  69, 
is  proposed  to  be  at  the  rate  of  1£  cents  per  pound  in  lieu  of  the  pres- 
ent duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  upon  that  commodity. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  Government  has  been  making  search 
Cor  available  sources  of  potash  other  than  the  German  deposits,  and 
that  it  is  important  to  develop  the  potash  industry  where  possible. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

HERBERT  WATSON. 

EXHIBIT  A. 

IMPORTATIONS    OF   BICARBONATE    OF  POTASH. 


Y                                       Rate  of 
duty. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duties. 

Value  per 
unit  of 
quantity. 

Ad  va- 
lorem rate 
of  duty. 

Per  cent. 
1900                      ..             25 

162,798 

$9,666 

$2,416.50 

$0.  059 

Per  cent. 
25 

J901    25 

73,  770 

5,054 

1,263.50 

.069 

25 

1  902                                                                                 25 

56,  970 

3,625 

906.25 

.064 

25 

]  903           .    .      .  .           25 

19,  130 

1,518 

379.  50 

.079 

25 

1904                                                                                 25 

93,  769 

4,778 

1,194.50 

.051 

25 

1905  25 

76,983 

4,504 

1,126.25 

.059 

25 

190(1                                                                             25 

44,  850 

2,192 

548  06 

.049 

25 

1907  .               25 

310,  281 

6,787 

1,696.75 

.022 

25 

1908                                                                             25 

218,  007 

11,500 

2,  875.  00 

.052 

25 

1909  .                    25 

342,856 

16,915 

4,  228.  75 

.049 

25 

1910  25 

334,  300 

16,633 

4,  158.  25 

.049 

25 

1911   25 

325,016 

16,428 

4,107.00 

.051 

25 

1912  25 

275,  204 

13,  155 

3,288.00 

.048 

25 

NOTE.-  In  (be  above  tabulation   the  year  is  the  fiscal  year  ended  on  June  30  of  the  designated  year. 


SCHEDULE  A.  87 

PARAGRAPH  3— COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  P. 

COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  F. 

REQUEST  THAT  MANNIT  BE  PLACED  ON  THE  FREE  LIST  WITH 

MANNA. 

NEW  YORK,  February  4,  1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN  :  It  has  recently  been  brought  to  our  attention  that 
our  people  in  America,  and  other  classes  of  your  population,  originat- 
ing from  southern  Europe,  use  almost  exclusively  crude  manna 
instead  of  mannit. 

Mannit  is  the  sugar  extracted  from  manna.  Manna  is  a  sap  from  a 
tree  known  as  frassino,  which  grows  only  in  Sicily  and  Southern 
Europe.  Manna  and  mannit  are  both  used  for  the  same  purposes — 
namely,  as  a  sirup  and  gentle  laxative.  Mannit  is  the  more  desirable 
of  the  two,  but  on  account  of  its  being  taxed  25  per  cent  duty  the 
people  import  cmde  manna  duty  free  instead. 

Approximately  47,427  pounds  crude  manna  were  imported  in  1911, 
valued  $21,424,  duty  free.  The  importations  of  mannit  are  unob- 
tainable, but  we  know  them  to  be  very  small,  only  a  few  hundred 
pounds.  The  high  duty,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  on  material  worth 
$2  a  pound,  brings  the  price  up  to  $2.50  a  pound,  with  the  results 
that  there  are  no  importations,  no  revenue  derived,  none  is  produced 
here,  and  the  people  are  importing  crude  manna  instead. 

It  requires  4  parts  manna  to  yield  1  part  of  mannit,  so  the  persons 
using  manna  take  a  proportionately  larger  quantity,  and  get  a  lot  of 
molasses  and  other  impurities  in  their  system.  The  principal  sales  in 
other  countries  are  of  mannit,  because  the  price  is  right,  and  mannit 
is  better  adapted  for  children  and  delicate  persons,  because  of  its 
purity.  It  seems  reasonable,  therefore,  to  ask  that  the  consumer  in 
the  United  States  be  also  placed  in  a  position  to  get  mannit  reasonably, 
especially  as  there  is  nothing  to  be  lost  to  anybody  in  granting  to 
mannit  the  same  exemption  from  duty  as  accorded  to  manna.  Busi- 
ness will  be  handled  through  the  same  channels  here,  and  the  supply 
received  from  the  same  sources  abroad. 

It  seems  that  mannit  has  been  improperly  classified  with  "Chemical 
compounds,  n.  s.  p.  f.,  subject  to  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem." 
Mannit  is  not  a  "chemical  compound,"  alcohol  is  not  used  in  refining 
it  commercially,  and  mannit  does  not  contain  alcohol  in  any  form 
whatsoever.  The  mannit  of  commerce  is  the  pure  crystal  obtained 
from  a  solution  of  manna  in  water.  The  alcohol  process  referred  to  in 
textbooks  is  not  employed  except  in  very  rare  instances;  not  over 
250  pounds  a  year  of  alcohol-prepared  mannit  is  used  in  the  whole 
world. 

Mannit  is  not  manufactured  or  refined  in  the  United  States  in  any 
form,  and  probably  never  will  be  because  of  its  peculiar  and  excep- 
tional nature.  The  sap-bearing  trees  grow  only  in  a  few  places  in 
southern  Europe,  and  are  not  grown  in  the  United  States.  It  requires 
12  years  before  a  tree  begins  to  bear,  and  then  another  5  to  10  years 
for  the  sap  to  ripen  after  it  has  been  tapped.  Manna  improves  with 
age;  so  the  villagers  pile  it  against  the  walls  of  their  huts  and  have 


88  TABIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  3— COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  E. 

it  around  them  this  way,  year  after  year.  They  are  a  deserving 
class  of  poor  but  industrious  people,  living  cheaply  on  their  own  gar- 
dens, and  sell  their  manna  wnen  they  need  money.  The  \yorld' s  pro- 
duction and  supply  of  manna  does  not  exceed  half  a  million  pounds 
annually;  take  out  50,000  pounds  of  crude  shipped  to  America,  and 
the  balance  is  boiled  down  to  150,000  pounds  of  mannit,  the  refined 
manna,  which  plays  an  important  r6le  in  the  health  of  many  peo- 
ple elsewhere,  and  would  be  better  for  our  own  people  than  the 
present  use  of  crude  manna. 

We  therefore  respectfully  petition  your  honorable  committee  to 
place  mannit  in  the  same  specific  classification  as  manna  on  the  free 
list;  that  is,  to  have  paragraph  620  instead  of  reading  "manna," 
read  "manna  and  mannit,"  thereby  benefiting  and  encouraging  the 
consumer,  without  injuring  any  industry  or  merchant,  and  without 
depriving  the  Government  of  revenue. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

FERDINAND  COCORULLO,  Importer. 

Endorsed  by  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  New  York. 

G.  R.  SCHROEDER,  Secretary. 

THE  HARSHAW  FULLER  &  GOODWIN  CO.,  CLEVELAND,  OHIO, 
ASK  FOR  CLASSIFICATION  OF  TARTRATE  OF  LIME. 

THE  HARSHAW  FULLER  &  GOODWIN  Co., 

Cleveland,  January  6,  1913. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  ask  that  paragraph  6  be  changed  by  adding 
the  following:  "Tartrate  of  lime"  (after  argols). 

The  paragraph  would  then  read: 

"Argols,  or  crude  tartar,  or  wine  lees  crude,  and  tartrate  of  lime,  5 
per  cent  ad  valorem;  tartars  and  lees  crystals,  or  partly  refined  argols, 
containing  not  more  than  90  per  cent  of  bitartrate  of  potash,  and  tar- 
trate of  soda  or  potassa,  or  Kocholle  salts,  3  cents  per  pound;  con- 
taining more  than  90  per  cent  of  bitartrate  of  potash,  4  cents  per 
pound:  cream  of  tartar  and  patent  tartar,  5  cents  per  pound." 

"Tartrate  of  lime"  is  a  by-product  in  the  manufacture  of  cream  of 
tartar,  and  is  the  raw  material  in  the  manufacture  of  tartaric  acid; 
hence  it  bears  the  same  relation  to  tartaric  acid  as  argols  to  cream  of 
tartar,  and,  in  our  opinion,  should  come  under  the  same  classification, 
and  be  subject  to  the  same  rate  of  duty.  It  has  not  been  heretofore 
specifically  classed. 

Respectfully,  RALPH  L.  FULLER,  Secretary. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  G. 


SCHEDULE  A.  89 

PABAGRAPH  3— COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  F. 
NITRATE  OF  AMMONIA. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  J.  DIPPEL,  REPRESENTING  C.  TEN- 
NENT  SONS  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

The  witness  was  duly  sworn  by  the  chairman. 

Mr.  DIPPEL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  rep- 
resent the  C.  Tennent  Sons  &  Co.,  of  New  York  City.  We  are  the 
selling  agents  of  the  Norwegian  Hydroelectric  Nitrogen  Co.  (Ltd.). 
of  Norway,  and  the  article  wrhich  I  desire  to  bring  to  your  attention 
is  nitrate  of  ammonia.  Under  the  present  tariff  it  is  not  specially 
provided  for,  and  consequently  pays  a  duty  under  the  blanket  para- 
graph No.  3  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Under  House  bill  20182, 
paragraph  8,  a  duty  of  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per  pound  is  pro- 
vided, which,  of  course,  we  think  is  a  reasonable  rate  when  the  article 
is  to  be  used  for  explosive  purposes.  Up  to  the  present  time  it  has 
been  used  merely  for  explosive  purposes,  in  the  manufacture  of  per- 
missible powders — that  is.  for  explosive  purposes — and  in  a  limited 
way  in  the  manufacture  of  nitrous  oxide,  which  is  commonly  known 
as  "  laughing  gas." 

Since  the  bill  was  drawn,  however,  a  wonderful  advance  in  the 
chemioal  industries  of  the  world  has  taken  place  through  the  syn- 
thetic process  for  the  manufacture  of  nitric  acid  and  ammonia,  which 
has  made  it  possible  now  to  manufacture  nitrate  of  ammonia  at  a 
price  which  will  permit  of  its  being  utilized  as  a  fertilizing  material 
if  it  is  admitted  free  of  duty.  It  contains  35  per  cent  of  nitrogen, 
which  is  equivalent  to  about  42  per  cent  of  ammonia,  and  in  this  con- 
centrated form  it  is  most  valuable  as  a  fertilizer.  In  fact,  nitrogen 
in  the  form  of  nitrates  is  the  most  available  of  any  form  of  nitrogen, 
as  detailed  in  Farmers'  Bulletin  No.  44,  on  page  15,  which  bulletin 
was  issued  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture;  and 
that  bulletin  Swells  at  some  length  on  nitrogen,  particularly  on  nitro- 
gen in  the  form  of  nitrates. 

In  the  Southern  States,  to  show  you  how  much  of  this  fertilizing 
material  is  consumed  in  the  country — in  the  Southern  States  the  con- 
sumption of  fertilizers  for  1911  was  approximately  4,250,000  tons, 
of  which  about  106,000  tons  was  nitrogen,  taken  out  at  100  per  cent; 
that  is  to  say,  the  amount  of  nitrate  of  soda  would  be  equal  to  about 
530,000  tons  in  the  Southern  States  alone. 

Mr.  William  H.  Bowker,  of  Boston,  conected  with  the  American 
Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  one  of  the  oldest  and  best-informed 
men  in  the  fertilizer  trade,  in  his  publication,  entitled  "  Plant  Food- 
its  Sources,  Conservation,  and  Preparation,"  writes  in  reference  to 
nitrogen : 

Nitrogen  is  so  rare  an  article,  the  commercial  sources  of  it  being  so  few 
that  he  who  will  discover  a  cheap  commercial  process  for  obtaining  it  from 
the  atmosphere  and  combining  it  in  a  form  that  will  be  servicable  to  crop  pro- 
duction not  only  will  be  a  great  benefactor  and  inventor  but  will  change  the 
economy  of  living  on  this  earth." 

This  is  just  what  the  Norwegian  Co.  has  done.  That  was  written 
about  two  or  three  years  ago,  but  they  have  done  exactly  what  he 
refers  to  here. 


90  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  3— COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  F. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  cyanamide? 

Mr.  DIPPEL.  No ;  it  is  not  cyanamide. 

We  have  presented  briefs,  giving  in  detail  full  particulars,  which 
we  will  be  glad  to  have  you  incorporate  into  the  record,  and  we  do 
not  think  any  lengthy  argument  is  necessary  to  show  the  committee 
the  great  value  which  will  accrue  to  the  agricultural  interests  of  the 
country  if  this  article  is  placed  on  the  free  list. 

In  order  to  make  it  obtainable  to  the  American  farmer  all  duty 
must  be  eliminated,  otherwise  it  can  not  compete  with  nitrate  of  soda, 
sulphate  of  ammonia,  and  other  ammoniates  for  fertilizing  purposes 
which  are  at  the  present  time  on  the  free  lists. 

Congress  has  always  been  in  sympathy  with  the  free  importation 
of  fertilizing  materials,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  duty  is  at  this  time 
imposed  on  an  article  used  for  this  purpose. 

In  the  Payne- Aldrich  bill  of  1909  these  fertilizing  materials, 
namely,  sulphate  of  ammonia,  basic  slag,  cyanamide,  andf  lime  nitro- 
gen were  all  placed  on  the  free  list,  while  prior  to  the  passage  of  that 
act  rates  of  duty  of  three-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound  and  $1  per  ton 
and  25  per  cent,  respectively,  prevailed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  amount  of  importation  of  this 
product  ? 

Mr.  DIPPEL.  The  importation  now  is  limited,  because  it  is  only 
used  for  explosive  purposes.  You  are  speaking  of  nitrate  of  am- 
monia ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.    Is  cyanamide  on  the  free  list  now? 

Mr.  DIPPEL.  Cyanamide  is  now  on  the  free  list,  and  also  nitrate 
of  lime.  In  fact,  there  are  no  fertilizing  materials  that  I  know  that 
are  not  on  the  free  list.  If  nitrate  of  ammonia  is  placed  on  the  free 
list,  our  company  can  import  it  to  compete  with  nitrate  of  soda 
and  other  ammoniates ;  and  we  feel  that  after  knowing  the  facts  and 
giving  due  consideration  thereto  you  honorable  committee  will  put 
it  on  an  equal  basis  with  these  articles. 

100  WILLIAM  STREET, 
New  York,  January  16,  1913. 
Honorable  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  We.  the  United  States  agents  for  the  Norwegian  Hydro-Electric 
Nitrogen  Co.  (Ltd.),  do  respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  the  following 
in  the  contemplated  revision  of  the  tariff: 

Nitrate  of  ammonia. — This  material  has  been  imported  for  several  years  for 
the  purpose  of  being  used  in  the  manufacture  of  safety  explosives  and  also  in 
a  limited  way  in  the  manufacture  of  nitrous  oxide.  Under  paragraph  8 
(H.  R.  20182)  a  duty  is  proposed  of  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per  pound,  which, 
at  the  present  time,  is  a  reasonable  rate  of  duty  on  the  material  when  nitrate 
of  ammonia  is  used  for  either  of  the  aforesaid  purposes.  We  do,  however, 
respectfully  claim  that — 

Nitrate  of  ammonia  when  used  for  fertilizing  purposes  should  be  placed  on 
the  free  list  for  the  following  reasons : 

The  development  of  the  synthetical  process  for  the  manufacture  of  nitric  acid 
has  made  it  possible  to  manufacture  nitrate  of  ammonia  in  Norway  at  a  price 
so  low  that  it  can  be  used  as  a  fertilizer.  Nitrogen  in  the  form  of  nitrates  is 
the  most  valuable  form  in  which  nitrogen  is  obtainable  for  fertilizing  purposes, 
and  the  ever-increasing  demand  in  the  United  States,  as  evidenced  by  the 
increased  importations  of  nitrate  of  soda,  shows  conclusively  that  the  United 
States  is  not  able  to  produce  sufficient  nitrogen  for  the  requirements  of  the 
country.  In  the  Southeastern  States — Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Car- 
olina, Georgia.  Florida.  Alabama.  Tennessee,  and  Mississippi — the  consumption 


SCHEDULE   A.  91 

PAKAGBAPH  3— COMPOUNDS  N.  S.  P.  F. 

of  fertilizers  for  the  year  1910  were,  according  to  the  1910  United  States  census 
advance  reports,  3.761,972  ton?,  a  large  percentage  of  which  was  in  the  form 
of  nitrogen.  The  demand  for  nitrates  from  the  Northeastern  States  and  Pacific 
coast  is  also  on  the  increase,  and  the  consumption  in  the  entire  United  States 
will  undoubtedly  continue  to  increase  steadily  as  the  yield  for  each  acre  of 
cultivated  land  in  the  United  States,  on  the  average,  is  only  about  one-half  of 
the  yield  obtained  from  most  European  soils  of  equal  quality.  Consequently  it 
is  absolutely  essential  to  secure  fertilizer  materials  to  be  applied  to  the  agri- 
cultural lands  in  the  United  States.  The  sources  of  supply  in  the  United  States 
are  mainly  from  the  waste  substances  of  the  slaughterhouses,  such  as  dried 
blood  and  tankage,  which,  naturally,  are  limited. 

Nitrate  of  ammonia  contains  35  per  cent  nitrogen  and  represents  the  most 
concentrated  form  of  nitrogen  as  a  nitrate.  This  material,  on  account  of  its 
highly  concentrated  form,  will  be  a  great  benefit  to  the  American  farmers  and 
consumers. 

The  Norwegian  Hydro-Electric  Nitrogen  Co.  (Ltd.)  can  manufacture  nitrate 
of  ammonia  to  compete  with  nitrate  of  soda  and  other  ammoniates,  if  it  is  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty.  It  is  being  used  abroad  in  an  experimental  way,  and  the 
company  informs  us  that  they  are  prepared  to  manufacture  60,000  tons,  of 
which  30.000  tons  can  be  available  for  export  to  this  side. 

We  commend  this  to  the  attention  of  your  honorable  committee,  and  we  feel 
that  the  benefits  to  be  gained  by  the  American  farmer  by  the  use  of  this  article 
can  not  be  overestimated. 

Yours,  faithfully,  C.  TENNANT  SONS  &  Co.  OF  NEW  YORK. 

E.  O.  LEMON,  Vice  President. 


100  WILLIAM  STREET, 
New  1'orfc,"  January  29,  191S. 
Honorable  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Subject:  Nitrate  of  ammonia,  which  we  think  should  now  be  placed  upon  the 
free  list  in  the  interest  of  the  American  agriculturalist. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  We  desire  to  supplement  our  brief  of  January  16  on  this  subject. 

Nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and  potash  are  the  constituents  most  likely  to  be 
deficient  in  soils  or  most  quickly  exhausted  by  the  production  and  removal  of 
crops.  They  are  known  as  essential  fertilizing  constituents,  and  a  value  of  com- 
mercial fertilizer  is  determined  almost  exclusively  by  the  amount  of  form  of  the 
nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and  potash  which  it  contains. 

The  Farmers'  Bulletin,  No.  44,  page  12,  United  States  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, says  about  nitrogen,  "  Nitrogen  is  the  most  expensive  of  the  three  essential 
fertilizing  elements.  It  exists  in  fertilizers  in  three  distinct  forms,  viz,  as  an 
organic  matter,  as  ammonia,  and  as  nitrate." 

(1)  Organic  nitrogen. — The  most  abundant  supply  of  nitrogen  occurs  in  or- 
ganic forms,  and  the  most  available  source  of  organic  nitrogen,  from  the  stand- 
point of  uniformity  in  composition,  richness  in  the  constituents,  and  availability 
are  dried  blood,  dried  meat,  and  concentrated  tankage,  which  are  produced  in 
large  quantities  in  slaughterhouses;  also  dried  fish,  refuse  from  fish  oil  and  fish- 
canning  establishments;  also  the  residue  of  cotton  seed  after  the  oil  has  been  ex- 
tracted. 

(2)  Nitrogen  a-s  ammonia. — Nitrogen  of  ammonia  exists  in  commercial  prod- 
ucts in  the  form  of  sulphate  of  ammonia ;  it  is  more  readily  available  than  ni- 
trogen in  organic  forms.     Ammonia  nitrogen  is  derived  to-day  almost  exclusively 
from  sulphate  of  ammonia,  the  commercial  product  of  which  contains  about  20 
per  cent  of  nitrogen ;  this  form  of  nitrogen  is  readily  converted  in  the  soil  into 
nitrate. 

(3)  Nitrogen  as  nitrate. — Nitrogen  as  nitrate  exists  in  commercial  products 
to-day  in  the  form  of  nitrate  of  soda,  nitrate  of  potash,  and  nitrate  of  lime. 
These,  like  the  ammonia  compounds,  are  extremely  soluble,  and  the  nitrate  con- 
tained in  them  is  readily  available  as  food  for  plants.    The  nitrogen  in  this  form 
is  directly  and  immediately  available,  no  further  change  being  necessary.     The 
main  source  of  nitrate  nitrogen  is  nitrate  of  soda;  this  Chile  saltpeter  contains 
15.5  per  cent  nitrogen. 


92  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  4^HYDRATE  OF  ALUMINA. 

Nitrate  of  lime  has  been  placed  on  the  market  the  last  few  years.  It  contains 
13  per  cent  nitrogen,  and  is  produced  from  synthetic  nitric  acid  and  limestone. 
The  development  of  the  synthetic  nitric  acid  and  ammonia  industry  has  made 
it  possible  to  manufacture  nitrate  of  ammonia  at  a  price  low  enough  to  permit 
its  use  in  Europe,  and  it  could  also  become  available  to  the  American  farmer  in 
the  United  States  in  competition  with  Chile  saltpeter  if  put  upon  the  free  list. 

The  consumption  of  fertilizers  in  the  Southern  States  was  in  1911  approxi- 
mately 4.250,000  tons,  containing  about  306.000  tons  of  nitrogen.  For  1910  the 
consumption,  according  to  the  1910  United  States  Census  Advance  Report,  was 
3,761,972  tons.  The  demand  for  nitrogen  has  been  increasing  very  rapidly  over 
the  entire  United  States  and  must  continue  to  gain  as  the  demand  for  fertilizers 
increases ;  for  example,  the  consumption  of  sulphate  of  ammonia  in  the  United 
States  in  the  year  1900  was  36,011  tons,  and  for  1911,  230,743  tons.  It  is  also  a 
fact  that  the  importation  of  nitrate  of  soda  from  Chile  shows  an  enormous  in- 
crease over  the  corresponding  period. 

One  of  the  greatest  problems  to  be  solved  in  the  United  States  is  how  to  in- 
crease the  yield  per  acre  of  cultivated  land  under  the  various  crops.  To  illus- 
trate : 


Germany :  Bushels. 

Rye 29 

Barley 38 

Oats 51 

Potatoes    _  _  158 


United  States:  Bushels. 

Rye 16 

Barley 21$ 

Oats 25 

Potatoes  —  _83 


England  obtains  a  little  more  per  acre  than  Germany.  The  difference  in  the 
output  between  the  United  States  and  European  countries  lies  in  the  lavish  use 
of  fertilizers  in  Europe.  All  of  the  different  kinds  of  fertilizers  are  now  on  the 
free  list — nitrate  of  soda,  nitrate  of  lime,  sulphate  of  ammonia,  tankage,  fish 
scraps,  etc. — and  we  now  respectfully  petition  that  nitrate  of  ammonia  be  placed 
upon  the  free  list,  where,  in  all  fairness,  it  seems  to  belong. 

As  shown  by  the  foregoing,  the  economic  production  of  nitrate  of  ammonia 
is  of  recent  origin ;  the  new  industry  has  come  into  existence  since  the  last  tariff 
act.  Nitrate  of  ammonia  has  been  imported  into  the  United  States  in  limited 
quantities  for  the  explosive  industry.  The  argument  here  is  exactly  the  same 
as  with  nitrate  of  soda  now  imported  from  Chile  which  enters  into  the  fertilizer 
industries  and  is  on  the  free  list. 

Yours,  truly,  C.  TEN N ANT  SONS  &  Co.  OF  NEW  YORK. 

WM.  J.  DIPPEL,  Secretary. 

PARAGRAPH  4. 

Alumina,  hydrate  of,  or  refined  bauxite,  containing  not  more  than  sixty- 
four  per  centum  of  alumina,  four-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  contain- 
ing more  than  sixty-four  per  centum  of  alumina,  six-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound.  Alum,  alum  cake,  patent  alum,  sulphate  of  alumina,  and  aluminous 
cake,  containing  not  more  than  fifteen  per  centum  of  alumina  and  more  than 
three-tenths  of  one  per  centum  of  iron  oxide,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound; 
alum,  alum  cake,  patent  alum,  sulphate  of  alumina,  and  aluminous  cake, 
containing  more  than  fifteen  per  centum  of  alumina,  or  not  more  than  three- 
tenths  of  one  per  centum  of  iron  oxide,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

HYDRATE  OF  ALUMINA. 

STATEMENT     OF    AUSTIN    M.    PURVES,    REPRESENTING     THE 
PENNSYLVANIA  SALT  MANUFACTURING  CO. 

Mr.  PURVES.  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  before  you,  gentlemen, 
the  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Co.,  in  whose  behalf  I  request 
your  attention  in  connection  with  the  proposed  reduction  of  the  duty 
on- 
Air.  HARRISON  (interposing).  Please  give  your  name. 
Mr.  PURVES.  A.  M.  Purves. 
Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  To  what  paragraph  are  you  referring  ? 


SCHEDULE  A.  93 

PABAGBAPH  4— HYDRATE  OP  ALUMINA. 

Mr.  PURVES.  Paragraph  4. 

The  duty  proposed  under  the  act  known  as  House  bill  No.  20182 
is  fixed  at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem.  This  duty  we  beg  to  submit  is  not 
sufficient  to  compensate  for  the  difference  in  cost  of  manufacture 
between  the  United  States  and  foreign  countries  and  this  principally 
on  account  of  the  element  of  labor  entering  into  the  proposition. 
The  average  of  labor  in  Germany  and  England  is  a  dollar  per  day.  as 
compared  with  an  average  rate  of  $2.25  a  day  in  this  country.  As 
the  item  of  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  alumina  approximates  40  per 
cent  of  the  total  cost,  it  is  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  proposed  duty 
does  not  compensate  for  this  one  single  element  of  cost. 

The  duty  now  current  under  the  Payne  bill  of  four-tenths  of  a 
cent  per  pound  on  hydrate  of  alumina  containing  not  more  than  64 
per  cent  of  alumina,  and  six-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound  when  it  con- 
tarns  more  than  64  per  cent  alumina,  amounts  to  only  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  and  is  insufficient  to  maintain  the  current  rate  of  wages  on 
this  side.  The  industry  has  been  made  possible  of  maintenance  in  the 
United  States  through  the  large  demand  abroad  for  alumina  products; 
but  this  has  been  met  by  increased  production  in  England,  Germany, 
and  France,  with  the  result  that  longing  eyes  are  now  being  cast  upon 
the  great  markets  of  the  United  States,  made  so  attractive  by  the 
low  rate  of  duty  prevailing  under  our  present  tariff  law.  This  im- 
portant industry,  now  aggregating  a  production  of  100,000  tons  per 
annum,  demands,  we  believe,  careful  consideration  in  connection 
with  the  economic  measure  now  before  your  honorable  committee, 
and  we  beg  to  request  your  favorable  attitude  as  applied  to  the 
current  rates  of  duty,  to  wit,  four-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on 
hydrate  and  six-tenths  of  a  cent  on  calcined  as  necessary  to  the  integ- 
rity of  the  alumina  industry  in  the  United  States. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  2,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chaii~man  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  before  you  the  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manu- 
facturing Co.,  in  whose  behalf  I  respectfully  request  your  attention  in  connection 
with  the  proposed  reduction  of  duty  on  hydrate  of  alumina,  etc. 

The  duty  proposed  under  the  act  known  as  House  bill  20182  is  fixed  at  15  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  This  duty  we  beg  to  submit  is  not  sufficient  to  compensate  for  the  dif- 
ference in  cost  of  manufacture  between  the  United  States  and  foreign  countries,  and 
this  principally  on  account  of  the  element  of  labor  entering  into  the  proposition.  The 
average  of  wages  in  England  and  Germany  is  $1  per  day,  as  compared  with  an  average 
rate  of  $2.25  per  day  in  this  country.  As  the  item  of  labor  in  the  manufacture  of 
alumina  approximates  40  per  cent  of  the  total  cost,  it  is  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  pro- 
posed duty  does  not  compensate  for  this  one  single  element  of  cost. 

The  duty  now  current  under  the  Payne  bill  of  four-tenths  cent  per  pound  on  hydrate 
of  alumina  containing  not  more  than  64  per  cent  of  alumina  and  six-tenths  cent  per 
pound  when  it  contains  more  than  64  per  cent  alumina  amounts  to  only  25  per  cent 
ad  valorem  and  is  insufficient  to  maintain  the  current  rate  of  wages  on  this  side.  The 
industry  has  been  made  possible  of  maintenance  in  the  United  States  through  the 
large  demand  abroad  for  alumina  products,  but  this  has  been  met  by  increased  pro- 
duction in  England,  Germany,  and  France,  with  the  result  that  longing  eyes  are  now 
being  cast  upon  the  great  markets  of  the  United  States  made  so  attractive  by  the  low 
rate  of  duty  prevailing  under  our  present  tariff  law. 

This  important  industry  now  aggregating  a  production  of  100,000  tons  per  annum 
demands,  we  believe,  careful  consideration,  in  connection  with  the  economic  measure 
now  before  your  honorable  committee,  and  we  beg  to  request  your  favorable  attitude 
as  applied  to  the  current  rates  of  duty,  to-wit,  four-tenths  cent  per  pound  on  hydrate 


94  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  4^-HYDRATE  OF  ALUMINA. 

and  six-tenths  cent  on  calcined,  as  necessary  to  the  integrity  of  the  alumina  industry 
in  the  United  States. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 

PENNSYLVANIA  SALT  MANUFACTURING  Co. 

AUSTIN  M.  PURVES,  Vice  President. 

BRIEF   SUBMITTED   BY   THE   MERRIMAC   CHEMICAL  CO., 
BOSTON,  MASS. 

JANUARY,  1,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  G. 
DEAR  SIR:  On  behalf  of  the  Merrimac  Chemical  Co.,  I  beg  to  sub- 
mit the  following  brief  for  the  consideration  of  your  committee  in 
connection  with  its  investigations  regarding  tariff: 

HYDRATE    OF   ALUMINA,    ETC. 

Paragraph  4  of  the  act  of  1909  provides  as  follows: 

"Alumina,  hydrate  of,  or  refined  bauxite,  containing  not  more  than 
sixty-four  per  centum  of  alumina,  four-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound  ; 
containing  more  than  sixty-four  per  centum  of  alumina,  six-tenths  of 
one  cent  per  pound.  Alum,  alum  cake,  patent  alum,  sulphate  of 
alumina,  and  aluminous  cake,  containing  not  more  than  fifteen  per 
centum  of  alumina  and  more  than  three-tenths  of  one  per  centum  of 
iron  oxide,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound ;  alum,  alum  cake,  patent 
alum,  sulphate  of  alumina,  and  aluminous  cake,  containing  more  than 
fifteen  per  centum  of  alumina,  or  not  more  than  three-tenths  of  one 
per  centum  of  iron  oxide,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound." 

The  rates  and  the  classifications  as  provided  in  the  above  paragraph 
wo  believe  should  be  maintained. 

Hydrate  of  alumina  is  produced  from  bauxite.  It  is  essentially 
refined  bauxite  in  that,  if  the  impurities  are  removed  from  the  crude 
bauxite,  hydrate  of  alumina  is  the  resultant  product.  It  was  origi- 
nally entered  into  this  country  free  of  duty  under  the  head  of  "refined 
bauxite,"  but  it  was  subsequently  made  dutiable. 

Hydrate  of  alumina  contains  commercially'  about  64  per  cent  of 
alumina  and  about  36  per  cent  of  water  and  is  used  for  two  distinct 
purposes:  (1)  For  the  production  of  salts  of  alumina  by  dissolving  it 
in  acids;  and  (2)  for  the  production  of  aluminum.  When  it  is  used 
to  produce  salts  of  alumina,  the  water  content  is  not  objectionable, 
but.  when  used  for  the  production  of  aluminum,  it  is  necessary  that 
it  should  first  bo  calcined  in  order  to  drive  off  the  water.  As  hydrate 
of  alumina  may  or  may  not  contain  water,  according  as  it  is  to  be 
used,  the  distinction  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  a  duty  is  drawn  at 
64  per  cent  alumina  content. 

The  experience  of  the  Merrimac  Chemical  Co.  has  been  somewhat 
as  follows: 

In  ls()4  we  secured  from  Russia,  at  much  trouble  and  expense,  a 
process  for  the  manufacture  of  hydrate  of  alumina.  In  the  following 
year  we  erected  a  plant  and  started  operation;  but  shortly  thereafter 
a  duty  of  81  a  ton  was  placed  upon  bauxite,  with  the  result  that  our 
profits  from  the  manufacture  of  hydrate  of  alumina  were  so  reduced 
that  we  were  unable  to  enlarge  our  plant  in  any  way  whatsoever. 


SCHEDULE  A.  95 

PARAGRAPH  4— HYDRATE  OF  ALUMINA. 

If  the  duty  on  hydrate  of  alumina  is  to  be  reduced,  as  contemplated 
in  the  bill  drafted  last  year  and  known  as  "H.  K.  20182,"  it  will  be 
impossible  for  our  manufacturers  to  compete  with  those  manufac- 
turing abroad. 

SULPHATE  OF  ALUMINA,  ALUM,  ETC. 

The  distinction  in  the  amount  of  iron  oxide  content,  in  regard  to 
alum,  etc.,  is  made  *f  or  the  purposes  of  separating  the  high-cost  from 
the  low-cost  alums.  Alums  containing  more  than  -^  per  cent  of  iron 
oxide  are  presumably  made  by  dissolving  bauxite  in  acid  and  are 
cheaper  than  those  containing  less  than  ^  per  cent  of  iron  oxide, 
which  are  presumably  made  from  hydrate  of  alumina.  The  further 
distinction  in  regard  to  the  alumina  content  in  the  alums  is  made 
for  the  following  reasons:  It  is  possible  to  concentrate  the  low-grade 
alums  by  driving  off  all  the  water  and  thereby  greatly  enhance  the 
value.  In  other  words,  the  low-grade  alums,  irrespective  of  the  iron- 
oxide  content,  may  be  greatly  ei  hinced  by  concentration,  and,  on 
the  oth  T  hand,  those  alums  with  a  low  percentage  of  iron  oxide  are 
more  valuable  than  those  with  a  high  percentage  of  iron  oxide,  irre- 
spective of  concentration. 

For  these  reasons  we  believe  that  the  classifications  as  set  forth  in 
paragraph  4  of  the  present  tariff  act  are  advisable  and  should  be 
maintained. 

Alum,  alum  cake,  sulphate  of  alumina,  etc.,  from  1898  until  August 
5,  1909,  carried  a  specific  duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound.  During 
this  period  the  importations  were  only  approximately  2,500,000 
pounds,  with  an  annual  revenue  of  from  $10,000  to  $13,000.  By  the 
provisions  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909  the  duty  was  changed,  so  that 
alum,  alum  cake,  etc.,  containing  not  more  than  15  per  cent  of  alu- 
mina and  more  than  ^  per  cent  of  iron  oxide,  carried  a  duty  of  one- 
fourth  cent  per  pound;  while  alum,  alum  cake,  etc.,  containing  more 
than  15  per  cent  of  alumina,  or  not  more  than  -fo  per  cent  of  iron 
oxide,  carry  a  duty  of  three-eighths  cent  per  pound.  The  imports 
for  1911  show  an  increase  of  approximately  1,250,000  pounds,  or  in 
excess  of  50  per  cent. 

This  increase  in  importation  would  undoubtedly  have  been  much 
larger  but  for  the  conditions  existing  in  the  industry  in  this  country. 
For  the  past  five  or  six  years  competition  has  been  so  active  in  these 
various  grades  of  alum  that  the  prices  have  been  reduced  to  a  point 
where  there  is  not  only  no  profit  but  an  actual  loss  to  the  factories 
which  are  not  most  favorably  located;  and,  while  business  can  be 
carried  on  in  this  way  for  a  number  of  years  by  strong  concerns,  it  is 
not  likely  to  be  continued  indefinitely.  Eventually,  the  natural  laws 
must  control,  and  the  manufacturers  will  either  abandon  or  restrict 
their  output  until  business  shows  a  normal  profit.  With  the  duty 
as  at  present  any  increase  in  price  would  undoubtedly  enormously 
increase  the  proportion  of  importations.  This  increase  of  importa- 
tions is  not  going  to  affect  manufacturers  of  the  country  equitably, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  the  value  of  alum  cake  is  so  low  that  the  cost 
of  transportation  or  freight  rates  form  an  effectual  protection  for  the 
manufacturer  located  in  the  interior  of  the  country.  If  the  tariff  is 
fixed  at  a  rate  purposely  intended  to  stimulate  importations  of  the 


96  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  4— HYDRATE  OF  ALUMINA. 

various  grades  of  alum  which  are  consumed  in  this  country,  it  will 
simply  mean  the  annihilation  of  that  part  of  the  industry  which  is 
located  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  while  that  part  of  the  industry 
which  is  located  hi  the  interior  will  not  be  affected  materially,  if  at 
all,  as  the  freight  rates  will  furnish  ample  protection. 

Furthermore,  in  alum  as  in  many  other  articles,  America  is  con- 
sidered the  dumping  ground  for  surplus  product  abroad.  We  there- 
fore feel  that  the  reduction  of  duty  brought  about  by  the  Payne  bill, 
which  reduction  amounted  to  100  per  cent  of  the  present  tariff  on 
one  grade  and  33J  per  cent  on  the  other  grade,  was  indeed  radical, 
and  a  further  reduction  should  not  be  made. 

Conclusion.—  In  conclusion,  it  is  submitted  that  the  rates  and 
classifications  contained  in  paragraph  4  of  the  act  of  1909  should  be 
maintained. 

SULPHURIC    ACIDS. 

Paragraph  687  of  the  act  of  1909  provides  as  follows: 

"Sulphuric  acid  which  at  the  temperature  of  sixty  degrees  Fahren- 
heit does  not  exceed  the  specific  gravity  of  one  and  three  hundred  and 
eighty  one-thousandths,  for  use  in  manufacturing  superphosphate  of 
lime  or  artificial  manures  of  any  kind,  or  for  any  agricultural  pur- 
poses: Provided,  That  upon  all  sulphuric  acid  imported  from  any 
country,  whether  independent  or  a  dependency,  which  imposes  a 
duty  upon  sulphuric  acid  imported  into  such  country  from  the  United 
States,  there  shall  be  levied  and  collected  a  duty  of  one-fourth  of  one 
cent  per  pound." 

Paragraph  1  of  the  act  of  1909  provides  that  *  *  *  "Sulphuric 
acid  or  oil  of  vitriol  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  one- 
fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound." 

Paragraph  77  of  the  proposed  bill  known  as  "H.  R.  20182"  places 
sulphuric  acid  and  oil  of  vitriol  on  the  free  list  without  making  any 
proviso.  We  believe  that  the  proviso  contained  in  paragraph  687, 
as  above  set  forth,  should  be  retained  in  any  revision  of  the  tariff  act. 
This  vitally  affects  the  manufacturers  along  the  Canadian  border  line. 
If  the  American  market  is  to  be  thrown  open  to  Canadian  manufac- 
turers, the  American  manufacturers  should  have  equal  opportunities 
in  the  Canadian  market.  This  can  only  be  effected  by  some  such 
provision  in  our  tariff  law  as  above  set  forth. 

BAUXITE. 

Under  section  90  of  the  act  of  1909,  bauxite  is  assessed  a  duty  of 
SI  a  ton,  the  language  of  the  act  being  as  follows:  " Bauxite,  or 
beauxite.  crude,  not  refined  or  otherwise  advanced  in  condition  from 
its  natural  state,  one  dollar  per  ton."  *  *  * 

Bauxite  is  distinctly  a  raw  material,  and  it  is  our  contention  that 
it  should  be  placed  on  the  ''free  list." 

There  are  two  distinct  kinds  of  bauxite,  one  of  the  character  of  the 
American  bauxite,  commonly  known  as  "white"  bauxite,  and  con- 
taining less  than  10  per  cent  of  iron  oxide,  and  the  other  known  as 
"red"  bauxite,  containing  more  than  10  per  cent  of  iron  oxide,  and 
mined  almost  exclusively  in  foreign  countries,  particularly  France. 


SCHEDULE   A.  97 

PARAGRAPH  4— HYDRATE  OP  ALUMINA. 

The  "white/'  or  American,  bauxite  contains  47  per  cent  to  57  per 
cent  alumina,  iron  oxide  not  exceeding  10  per  cent,  and  from  6  per 
cent  to  20  per  cent  of  silica.  The  better  qualities  of  this  bauxite  are 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  sulphate  of  alumina,  in  the  manufacture 
of  which  a  high  percentage  or  silica  is  not  objectionable,  while  a 
high  percentage  or  iron  is  very  detrimental. 

The  ordinary  "red"  bauxite  contains  58  per  cent  to  60  per  cent  of 
alumina,  18  per  cent  to  22  per  cent  iron  oxide,  and  2  per  cent  to  4 
per  cent  silica.  This  "red  bauxite  is  used  principally  in  the  pro- 
duction of  alumina,  which  is  the  principal  source  01  aluminum  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  the  metal  aluminum.  In  the  refining  process 
of  this  "red"  bauxite  the  high  percentage  of  iron  is  not  objectionable, 
while  a  high  percentage  of  silica  content  is  almost  fatal  to  economical 
manufacture.  Thus  it  is  apparent  that  the  American,  or  "white," 
bauxite  and  the  "red"  bauxite,  which  constitutes  the  greater  portion 
of  the  foreign  importation  being  distinct  in  their  character  and  pur- 
pose, are  not  in  serious  competition  with  each  other. 

An  effort  was  made  at  the  last  tariff  revision  in  1908-9  to  have  the 
duty  on  bauxite  increased  from  $1  a  ton  to  $2  a  ton  on  the  ground 
that  the  American  mines  could  not  compete  with  the  foreign  mines. 

We  do  not  believe  that  importations  of  bauxite  interfere  in  the 
slightest  with  our  American  mines,  nor  do  we  believe  that  the  output 
of  our  American  mines  would  be  affected  if  bauxite  were  placed  on 
the  free  list.  The  following  are  our  reasons  for  this  opinion: 

(1)  As  already  stated,  the  "red"  bauxite,  which  constitutes  the 
bulk  of  the  foreign  importation,  is  used  for  different  purposes  than 
the  "white"  bauxite,  which  is  mined  in  this  country.     The  only 
important  exception  to  this  statement  that  we  know  of  is  the  Arkansas 
bauxite  used  by  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  in  their  works  near  St. 
Louis.     The  Arkansas  mines  in  question  are,  we  understand,  owned 
and  operated  by  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  and  it  is  most  im- 
probable that  their  operations  would  be  in  the  least  curtailed  by  the 
removal  of  the  duty  because  the  inland  freight  on  the  imported  ore 
would  be  prohibitive. 

(2)  Our  American  mines  have  shown  a  steadily  increasing  output, 
and  there  is  no  indication  that  the  development  of  these  mines  has 
been  or  is  likely  to  be  retarded  by  the  importation  of  foreign  bauxite. 

According  to  the  Mineral  Industry  for  1911,  which  is  the  most 
accurate  and  official  estimate  of  mineral  productions  published  in 
the  United  States,  there  were  produced  in  the  United  States  in  1911 
155,618  tons  of  bauxite.  This  is  somewhat  larger  than  the  output 
in  1910  and  1909,  and  three  times  the  output  in  1908.  In  1911  there 
were  imported  into  this  country  43,222  tons  of  bauxite,  but  the 
major  portion  of  this  importation  was  "red"  bauxite,  which,  as 
already  explained,  is  not  really  in  conflict  with  our  American  ore. 

It  is  submitted  that  when  due  consideration  is  given  to  the  fact 
that  the  American  output  of  bauxite  has  tripled  since  1908,  and 
when  it  is  considered  how  small  has  been  the  importation  of  "white" 
bauxite  under  the  present  duty,  it  will  be  apparent  that  our  American 
producers  of  bauxite  do  not  require  the  protection  of  this  $1  duty. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 1 


98  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  5— AMMONIA. 

Conclusion. — To  place  bauxite  on  the  free  list  would  surely  stimu- 
late the  aluminum  industry  and  would  not,  in  our  judgment,  seri- 
ously affect  our  American  mine  owners,  because,  as  already  explained, 
the  American  markets  for  the  imported  and  domestic  ore  are  to  a 
large  extent  separate  and  distinct. 

Furthermore,  should  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  maintain  a  duty 
on  our  American  bauxite,  a  distinction  may  be  made  between  the 
"red"  and  the  "white"  bauxite,  and  the  duty  removed  on  the 
former.  This  may  be  effected  by  providing  that  bauxite  containing 
in  excess  of  10  per  cent  of  iron  (Fe^)  shall  be  entered  free,  and 
bauxite  containing  less  than  10  per  cent  iron  shall  pay  a  duty  of  $1 
a  ton. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

S.  W.  WILDER,  President. 

PARAGRAPH  5. 

Ammonia,  carbonate  of,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound;  muriate  of,  or 
sal  ammoniac,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  liquid  anhydrous,  five 
cents  per  pound. 

AMMONIA. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  MICHIGAN  AMMONIA  WORKS. 

DETROIT,  MICH.,  January  2,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  manufacturers  of  aqua  ammonia  and  carbonate 
ammonia  we  beg  to  submit  our  most  earnest  protest  against  a  pos- 
sible reduction  in  the  duties  on  these  two  articles. 

Aqua  ammonia.— The  gradual  increasing  cost  of  the  raw  material, 
the  continuous  advances  in  labor  in  this  country  against  cheap  labor 
and  cheap  material  of  foreign  countries,  has  handicapped  the  manu- 
facture of  this  article  considerably.  The  manufacture  requires  an 
expensive  plant,  careful  and  conscientious  attention,  and  only  a  large 
production  permits  the  American  manufacturer  to  operate  on  a 
small  margin  if  the  duty  will  at  least  remain  at  its  present  state. 
A  standard  of  a  high-grade  article  must  be  maintained  on  account 
of  the  efficiency  expected  from  aqua  ammonia  in  its  ultimate  appli- 
cation. A  reduction  of  duty  would  not  result  in  any  advantages  to 
the  individual  at  large. 

Carbonate  ammonia. — The  manufacture  of  this  article  requires  an 
expensive  plant  and  very  careful  attention  to  the  process.  Its 
consumption  is  confined  practically  in  the  baking  of  sweet  baked 
goods  by  the  bakers  in  this  country  and  is  limited  to  a  compara- 
tively small  consumption.  Largely  on  account  of  the  limited  con- 
sumption we  can  operate  this  plant  a  few  months  in  the  year  only. 
The  foreign  manufacturers  have  considerable  advantages  over  us. 
Their  cost  of  labor  is  about  half  of  ours.  Their  cost  of  raw  material 
is  much  less  than  ours.  Their  larger  production  gives  them  the 
advantage  over  us  by  lessening  their  total  cost.  They  are  in  posi- 
tion to  maintain  profitable  prices  at  home  and  use  the  foreign  markets 


SCHEDULE   A.  99 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

to  dispose  of  their  surplus  production  at  a  low  price  and  sometimes 
below  cost. 

High  cost  of  labor  and  material  together  with  the  increased  cost  of 
manufacture  on  account  of  the  limited  home  consumption  bj  the 
American  market  make  it  absolutely  necessary  to  at  least  retain  the 
present  duty  in  order  to  permit  the  domestic  manufacturer  to  con- 
tinue the  production  of  this  article. 

A  possible  reduction  of  duty  on  this  product  would  in  no  way 
benefit  the  ultimate  consumer.  Less  than  a  pound  of  carbonate 
ammonia  is  used  to  a  barrel  of  flour,  yielding  about  400  pounds  of 
sweet  baked  goods.  The  carbonate  ammonia  is  sold  at  8  to  9  cents 
per  pound  and  fractionally  higher  for  small  quantities. 

If  therefore  the  present  tariff  on  these  products  would  be  decreased 
it  would  eventually  involve  the  American  manufacturer  into  a  very 
serious  loss,  and  we  respectfully  and  urgently  ask  you  not  to  decrease 
the  present  duties  of  these  articles. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

MICHIGAN  AMMONIA  WORKS, 
GEORGE  Osius, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

PARAGRAPH  6. 

Argols  or  crude  tartar  or  wine  lees  crude,  five  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  tartars 
and  lees  crystals,  or  partly  refined  argols,  containing  not  more  than  ninety 
per  centum  of  bitartrate  of  potash,  and  tartrate  of  soda  or  potassa,  or  Bochelle 
salts,  three  cents  per  pound;  containing  more  than  ninety  per  centum  of  bitar- 
trate of  potash,  four  cents  per  pound;  cream  of  tartar  and  patent  tartar,  five 
cents  per  pound. 

For  cream  tartar,  etc.,  see  also  Charles  Pfizer  &  Co.  (Inc.),  page  44;  for  argols,  see 
also  Harshaw  Fuller  &  Goodwin  Co.,  page  45. 

ARGOLS. 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY   CALIFORNIA    FIRMS   REGARD- 
ING DUTY  ON  CREAM  OF  TARTAR. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  January  6,  1913. 
To  the  honorable  REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONGRESS 
FOR  THE  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN  :  We  urgently  commend  to  your  attention  the  attached 
communications  to  the  Hon.  Burton  Harrison,  chairman  of  a  sub- 
committee of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House, 
relating  to  H.  R.  20182. 

No  doubt  you  will  agree  with  us  that  tariff  provisions  should  not 
be  enacted  which,  at  best,  can  procure  but  a  very  slight  reduction  in 
cost  for  the  ultimate  consumer  by  destroying  a  domestic  manufac- 
turing industry,  and  with  it  the  market  for  a  domestic  raw  material, 
with  consequent  loss  to  American  labor  interested  in  both. 

We  submit  this  additional  thought:  That  the  principal  article 
affected  by  the  reduction  in  section  9  of  said  bill,  cream  of  tartar, 
is  mainly  used  in  the  manufacture  of  baking  powder;  and  that  the 
resulting  reduction  in  the  market  price  of  one  of  its  ingredients  will 


100  TARIFF  HEAETWGS. 

PABAGBAFH  6— ABOOLS. 

not  be  sufficient  to  affect  the  retail  prices  of  this  article,  thus  favoring 
only  its  manufacturers  and  distributers. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

CALIFORNIA  WINE  ASSOCIATION. 

GUNDLACH-BUNDSCHU   WlNE    Co.    (INC.). 

ITALIAN  Swiss  COLONY. 
NAPA  &  SONOMA  WINE  Co. 
LACHMAN  &  JACOBI. 
WETMORE-BOWEN. 
ARTHUR  LACHMAN  &  Co. 
THE  ROSENBLATT  Co. 
B.  ARNHOLD  &  Co. 
AMERICAN  CREAM  TARTAR  Co. 

GRAPE  GROWERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

San  Francisco,  Col.,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  BURTON  HARRISON, 

Chairman,  Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  House  Bill  No.  20182  increases  the  duty  on  argols  (crude  tartar  or  wine 
lees),  apparently  favoring  the  American  wine  industry,  of  which  argols  are  a  by- 
product. 

The  marketing  of  this  product  in  California,  where  the  industry  is  mainly  located, 
has  been  made  possible  in  recent  years  only  through  the  establishment  on  this  coast 
of  a  refining  plant,  producing  therefrom  cream  of  tartar,  tartaric  acid,  and  Rochelle 
salts;  and  on  these  the  same  bill  makes  a  50  per  cent  reduction.  See  sections  9 
and  1. 

We  have  reason  to  believe  that  such  an  increase  in  duty  on  its  raw  material  and  a 
reduction  on  the  finished  product  will  seriously  cripple,  if  not  ruin,  this  local  industry; 
thus  destroying  instead  of  improving  our  market  for  argols. 

Aside  from  the  freight  handicap  in  marketing  this  by-product  on  the  Atlantic 
coast,  it  seems  likely  that  this  tariff  will  destroy  even  that  meager  opportunity  by 
opening  the  way  for  foreign  countries  to  supply  the  entire  American  requirements 
of  cream  of  tartar  and  the  other  products  from  wine  lees. 

A  tariff  giving  us  a  more  remunerative  price  for  argols  would,  of  course,  be  welcome; 
but  we  protest  against  a  change  that  tends  to  kill  the  industry  which  is  the  only 
outlet  for  this  product. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

E.  M.  SHEEHAN,  President. 

[Telegram.] 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  BURTON  HARRISON, 

Chairman  Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  grape  growers  and  wine  manufacturers,  we  are  urged  by  mutual 
interests  to  join  in  and  earnestly  indorse  the  representations  made  to  your  committee, 
under  even  date,  by  the  Grape  Growers'  Association  of  California  in  reference  to 
House  bill  No.  20182. 

ITALIAN-SWISS  COLONY. 
CALIFORNIA  WINE  ASSOCIATION. 

GUNDLACH-BUNDSCHU  WlNE   Co.  (INC.). 

ARTHUR  LACHMAN  Co. 
NAPA  &  SONOMA  WINE  Co. 
LACHMAN  &  JACOBI. 
WETMORE-BOWEN  Co. 
THE  ROSENBLATT  Co. 
B.  ARNHOLD  Co. 


SCHEDULE  A.  101 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARQOLS. 

MEMORIAL  OF  THE  ITALIAN  CHAMBER  OF  COMMEECE,  1TEW 

YORK  CITY. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  0. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  The  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  New  York, 
an  organization  representing  the  commercial  interests  of  a  community 
of  over  600,000  consumers  and  dealers  in  this  city,  and  of  a  still  greater 
number  distributed  in  various  States  in  the  Union  reached  through 
this  market,  desire  to  submit  to  this  honorable  committee  the  follow- 
ing recommendations  concerning  the  revisions  of  Schedule  A  of  the 
tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  now  under  consideration. 

To  make  its  position  clear  as  to  the  interests  it  represents,  this 
organization  states  at  the  outset  that  while  it  was  established  for  the 
promotion  of  reciprocal  trade  relations  between  Italy  and  this  country, 
where  its  members  have  made  their  permanent  home,  the  scope  of  the 
interests  it  represents  is  not  confined  to  imported  articles,  but  extends, 
by  reason  of  the  correlated  necessities  of  trade,  to  a  wider  field,  includ- 
ing many  commodities  of  domestic  productions  which  enter  their 
business. 

This  chamber  is  an  exponent  of  commercial  interests  with  which 
Italo-American  communities  living  in  this  country  have  been  identi- 
fied, irrespective  of  the  origin  of  the  articles  exchanged,  as  well  as  of 
the  consumers  whose  needs  they  supply. 

The  unbiased  character  of  tne  motives  bv  which  it  is  moved  to 
submit  recommendations  respecting  the  revision  of  the  tariff  thus 
appears  manifest. 

In  recommending  the  changes  in  the  rates  of  duties  herein  explained 
this  chamber  has  not  been  unmindful  of  the  many  issues  implied  in 
tariff  legislation,  of  which  some  of  the  most  important  are:  The  neces- 
sity of  raising  revenue;  the  offsetting  of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
production  of  an  article  between  this  and  foreign  countries;  the 
relieving,  as  much  as  possible,  from  taxation  of  articles  necessary  to 
the  livelihood  and  comfort  of  the  people;  the  lightening  of  fiscal 
burdens  on  raw  materials  necessary  to  American  industries;  the 
interests  of  the  ultimate  consumers  in  the  case  of  products  of  industry 
necessary  to  manufacturers  of  other  products;  and  is  aware  of  the 
difficult  task  of  reconciling  these  various  and  often  contrasting  issues 
so  that  a  tarn?  may  result  of  which,  rather  than  the  fiscal  side,  its 
function  in  relation  to  the  economic  life  of  the  Nation  may  stand  out 
conspicuously. 

This  chamber  believes  that  the  changes  of  rates  hereby  recom- 
mended are  not  only  La  accord  with  the  interests  it  vouches,  but  also 
harmonize  with  the  fundamental  principles  above  stated,  upon  which 
the  present  revision  is  conducted,  and  trusts  that  they  will  receive 
due  consideration  from  this  committee. 

Argols  and  wine  lees. — This  raw  material,  necessary  to  American 
industry,  is  not  produced,  save  in  irrelevant  quantity,  in  the  United 
States  and  is  imported  from  the  countries  of  southern  Europe  at 
the  rate  annually  of  about  28,250,000  pounds.  Argols  are  a  by- 
product of  the  wine  industry  and  the  only  visible  source  of  raw 
material  for  the  production  of  cream  of  tartar,  tartaric  acid,  and 


102  TABIFF  HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

Rochelle  salts,  tartaric  products  not  having  been  obtained  yet  by 
any  synthetic  process. 

Many  are  the  uses  of  these  finished  products:  Tartaric  acid  (of 
which  about  3,000,000  pounds  are  yearly  manufactured  in  this  coun- 
try) in  dyeing  and  printing  of  fabrics,  in  the  preparation  of  medicinal 
compounds,  and  as  a  substitute  of  citric  acid  in  the  manufacture  of 
beverages ;  cream  of  tartar,  in  medicines  and  food  products,  especially 
in  the  form  of  baking  powders,  in  the  preparation  of  which  probably 
more  than  one-half  of  the  whole  output  (estimated  yearly  at  about 
25,000,000  pounds)  is  absorbed;  and  Rochelle  salts,  used  pharma- 
ceutically. 

Baking  powders  are  a  household  necessity.  There  is  practically 
no  family,  however  modest  in  circumstances,  in  whose  grocery  bill 
baking  powders  are  not  an  item. 

It  is  important,  from  the  standpoint  of  health,  that  the  use  of  bak- 
ing powders  made  from  cream  of  tartar  be  encouraged  in  preference 
to  less  healthful  preparations  of  a  similar  denomination,  such  as  the 
phosphate  and  alum  baking  powders.  To  this  end  it  is  necessary 
that  the  cost  of  baking  powders  should  not  increase,  as  a  higher 
price  would  be  felt  widely,  and  in  some  measure  add  to  the  already 
nigh  cost  of  living. 

If  the  purpose  of  the  present  tariff  revision  is,  as  this  chamber 
understands,  to  relieve  raw  materials  bearing  upon  the  necessities  of 
life  from  fiscal  burdens  and  to  bring  about  by  fiscal  legislation  such 
conditions  as  will  promote  a  reduction  in,  or  at  least  prevent  an 
increase  of,  the  cost  of  living,  then  the  advisability  of  leaving 
unchanged  the  present  rate  of  5  per  cent  on  argols,  or  crude  tartar, 
is  manifest,  if  they  can  not  be  returned,  as  in  former  tariffs,  to  the 
free  list;  while  on  partly  refined  argols,  containing  no  more  than  90 
per  cent  of  bitartrate  ol  potash,  a  rate  of  10  per  cent,  and,  on  those 
containing  more  than  90  per  cent,  a  rate  of  2£  cents  per  pound  would 
appear  fair  for  revenue  purposes. 

On  cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid  this  chamber  recommends,  in 
lieu  of  the  present  high  duties,  the  rates,  respectively,  of  2£  and  3 
cents  per  pound,  which  appear  sufficient  for  reasonable  protection 
to  the  manufacturer,  without  leaving  the  consumers  entirely  at  the 
discretion  of  the  latter. 

Citrate  of  lime. — For  like  reasons  citrate  of  lime  should  be  main- 
tained on  the  free  list.  It  is  a  raw  material,  imported  chiefly  from 
Sicily  (5,219,544  pounds  in  fiscal  year  1911),  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  citric  acid,  of  which  over  2,000,000  pounds  are  yearly  produced  in 
the  United  States.  Citric  acid  enters  largely  into  the  preparation  of 
pharmaceutical  compounds  and  of  temperance  beverages,  so  healthful 
in  our  climate. 

The  importations  of  citrate  of  lime  have  shown  during  the  last 
years  a  tendency  to  increase,  owing  to  the  greater  demand  of  citric 
acid  for  the  above-stated  purpose.  As  it  is  an  article  not  produced 
in  the  United  States,  and  as  its  market  in  the  country  of  production 
has  been  organized  to  eliminate  the  fluctuations  in  prices  formerly 
ruling  in  this  raw  material,  its  continuation  on  the  free  list,  while  not 
prejudicial  to  any  American  industry,  would  obviate  increase  in  the 
price  of  citric  acid  and  allied  products,  otherwise  unavoidable. 


SCHEDULE  A.  103 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

Because  of  the  fact  that  few  houses  control  the  manufacture  of 
citric  acid  in  this  country  protection  of  the  interests  of  consumers 
suggests  the  advisability  of  a  reduction  from  the  present  prohibitive 
rate  to  one  affording  better  guaranties  against  monopoly. 

Lemon  juice. — In  line  with  the  arguments  for  free  citrate  of  lime 
are  those  for  free  lemon  juice,  an  article  not  produced  in  this  country, 
used  in  the  preparation  of  medicinal  compounds  and  of  cooling  drinlts, 
the  consumption  of  which  should  be  encouraged  in  the  interest  of 
public  healtn,  against  that  of  poor  and  often  noxious  substitutes. 

With  a  high  protective  tariff  on  lemons,  depriving  the  consumer  of 
small  means  of  this  healthful  commodity,  some  avenue  should  be  left 
open  to  him  for  getting,  during  the  hot  days  of  summer,  the  refreshing, 
thirst-quenching  benefits  of  its  juice,  while  by  encouraging  the  utiliza- 
tion of  culls  in  the  manufacture  of  juice  and  eliminating  them  from 
the  fruit  market  the  latter  is  benefited  also  to  the  advantage  of 
domestic  production. 

Boracic  acid  and  borax. — The  maintaining  on  boracic  acid  of  a  duty 
other  than  for  revenue  purposes  is  hardly  understandable,  considering 
the  natural  advantages  possessed  by  this  country  for  its  production, 
averaging  yearly  about  3,000  tons  against  a  little  over  155  tons 
imported  (during  the  fiscal  year  1911). 

The  markedly  declining  tendency  in  the  importations  of  this  article, 
used  chiefly  in  the  manufacture  of  glass  and  as  an  antiseptic,  and  at 
present  protected  with  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound,  equivalent  to  a 
protection  of  about  80  per  cent,  shows  that  the  reduction  of  the 
duty  to  a  more  reasonable  rate  is  advisable,  and  this  chamber  indorses 
the  proposed  rate  of  three-fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound  contained  in 
H.  K.  20182,  as  well  as  the  reduction  of  the  present  rate  of  2  cents  per 
pound  to  one-eighth  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  refined  borax. 

The  production  of  borax  in  the  United  States  is  almost  entirely 
controlled  by  one  firm,  and  amounts  annually  to  about  20,000  tons. 
It  is  largely  used  for  cleansing  purposes,  in  the  manufacture  of  soap, 
and  in  that  of  glass  and  earthenware. 

Crude  borate,  of  which  this  country  produced  41,434  tons  in  1909, 
should  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

Licorice  root  and  extract. — Licorice  root,  a  raw  material  not  pro- 
duced in  this  country  and  imported  chiefly  from  southern  Europe 
and  Asia  Minor  to  the  amount  of  $2,060,561  in  fiscal  year  1911,  is 
used  in  the  preparation  of  licorice  extract,  and  the  latter  is  utilized 
in  flavoring  tobacco  and  for  medicinal  purposes.  It  should  be  main- 
tained on  the  free  list  as  a  necessary  material  to  industrial  use,  identi- 
fied with  the  prosperity  of  an  important  American  industry,  and  in 
the  interest  of  consumption  of  American  tobacco. 

A  specific  duty  equivalent  to  15  per  cent  on  licorice  extract  would 
be  preferable  to  one  ad  valorem,  owing  to  the  difficulty  of  ascertain- 
ing the  market  price  of  said  commodity  in  the  countries  of  origin. 

Sumac  and  tannic  extracts. — The  removal  of  duties  on  hides  and 
undressed  skins,  accomplished  by  the  tariff  act  of  1909,  aimed  at 
counterbalancing  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  raw  materials,  due  to  the 
fact  that  production  does  not  keep  apace  with  consumption  and  the 
consequent  reaction  on  the  cost  or  leather  manufacturers,  which  has 
to  be  paid  by  the  ultimate  consumer. 


104  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARQOLS. 

Tanning  materials  being  an  important  factor  in  determining  the 
cost  of  leather,  it  is  evident  that  tney  should  be  relieved  as  much  as 
possible  from  fiscal  burdens. 

The  scarcity  in  the  domestic  supply  of  tanning  materials  will  make 
itself  felt  in  the  near  future,  as  the  deforestation  of  the  hemlock,  oak, 
and  chestnut  forests,  from  which  are  derived  most  of  the  materials 
now  employed  in  the  tannery,  proceeds  with  alarming  rapidity. 

The  importation  of  tanning  materials  should  therefore  be  encour- 
aged in  the  interest  of  the  American  tanning  industry,  and  among 
these  is  ground  sumac,  used  in  the  tanning  of  upper  leather. 

The  duty  on  ground  sumac  should  be  lowered  from  the  present 
rate  of  three-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound,  equivalent  to  about  16  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  to  one-fifth  or  1  cent  per  pound,  equivalent  to  about 
10  per  cent  ad  valorem;  and  the  importation  or  tannic  extracts 
should  be  encouraged  by  reason  of  economy  in  freight,  labor,  and 
waste  material  in  comparison  to  the  raw  materials,  with  tangible 
reductions  in  the  duties.  On  sumac  extract,  instead  of  the  present 
rate  of  five-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound,  the  duty  should  be  fixed  at 
three-eighths  of  1  cent,  and  on  chestnut  extract  reduced  from  the 
present  rate  of  15  per  cent  to  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

Although  some  sumac  and  sumac  extract  are  produced  in  the 
United  States,  namely,  in  Virginia,  Sicily  supplies  most  of  this  com- 
modity, Sicilian  sumac  yielding  the  lightest  and  most  esteemed  ex- 
tract, used  not  only  in  the  tanning  of  leather  but  also  in  the  textile 
industry. 

Oils  of  lemon,  orange,  and  bergamot. — These  essential  oils  are  not 
produced  in  the  United  States,  are  supplied  almost  entirely  by  Sicily 
(in  fiscal  year  1911,  lemon,  pounds,  430,768,  valued  $323,552;  orange, 
pounds,  73,804,  valued  $100,115;  and  bergamot,  pounds,  65,199, 
valued  $222,225),  are  used  chiefly  in  perfumery  and,  save  bergamot, 
as  flavorings  in  beverages,  confectionery,  and  pharmaceutical 
preparations. 

They  are  at  present  on  the  free  list,  where  they  have  been  for  many 
years,  with  the  exception  of  orange  oil,  upon  which  at  the  last  tariff 
revision  a  duty  at  first  of  $1  per  pound,  and  then,  upon  protest,  of 
25  per  cent  was  assessed.  The  imposition  of  a  duty  caused  a  decrease 
in  the  importations  of  orange  oil  from  92,077  pounds  hi  fiscal  year 
1905  to  73,804  pounds  in  fiscal  year  1911. 

Bergamot  is  not  grown  in  the  United  States  and  no  manufacture 
either  of  lemon  or  orange  oil  exists  or  can  be  established  in  California 
on  account  of  the  high  cost  of  labor,  which  does  not  admit  of  the 
extraction  of  the  essential  oils  by  hand,  while  no  efficient  machinery 
has  yet  been  devised  that  will  render  the  extraction  of  these  oils 
industrially  possible. 

Protection  can  not  be  a  valid  argument  in  regard  to  these  articles, 
because,  as  no  domestic  production  exists,  there  is  nothing  to  protect. 
Identified  as  they  are  with  the  success  of  important  lines  of  American 
industry  (perfumery,  beverages,  confectionery,  etc.),  lemon  and  ber- 
gamot oil  should  be  continued  on  the  free  list  and  orange  oil  should 
be  returned  to  it. 

If,  however,  for  revenue  purposes,  a  duty  should  be  deemed  una- 
voidable, which  in  the  end  would  have  to  be  paid  by  the  consumer, 


SCHEDULE  A.  105 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

this  chamber  recommends  that,  instead  of  an  ad  valorem,  as  pro- 
posed in  H.  R.  20182,  a  specific  rate,  equivalent  to  the  proposed  20 
per  cent  rate  ad  valorem,  be  charged,  in  order  to  avoid  the  difficulty 
of  assessment  and  the  consequent  fines  to  importers,  through  no  fault 
of  their  own,  which  are  apt  to  be  encountered  by  an  ad  valorem  rate. 

Olive  oil. — Olive  oil,  wnich  only  a  score  of  years  ago  was  imported 
in  comparatively  small  amount,  nas  become  of  late  years  an  impor- 
tant article  of  food,  owing  to  the  demand  created  by  tne  notable  num- 
ber of  immigrants  from  southern  Europe,  in  whose  diet  this  article  is 
an  important  item,  as  well  as  to  the  extension  of  its  use  among  natives. 

In  fact,  while  the  importations  of  edible  olive  oil  in  1892  amounted 
to  only  706,486  gallons,  they  reached  in  1911  a  total  of  4,405,827  gal- 
lons. 

From  the  above  figures,  showing  the  remarkable  progress  in  its 
consumption,  the  classification  of  ouve  oil  under  Scheaule  A  (chemi- 
cals, etc.),  appears  rather  out  of  date.  Edible  olive  oil  would  be 
more  properly  classified  under  Schedule  G  (agricultural  products), 
because  olive  oil  destined  to  industrial  use  represents  now  the  smaller 
amount  of  importations  (in  fiscal  year  1911,  578,477  gallons,  against 
4,405,827  gallons  of  edible  olive  oil). 

Olive  oil,  for  many  of  our  people,  even  of  small  means,  who  have 
come  from  southern  Europe,  wnere  this  food  practically  takes  the 
place  of  butter  in  the  diet  of  the  people,  is  an  article  of  prime  neces- 
sity, and  its  beneficial  use,  either  medicinally  or  as  an  article  of  food, 
is  becoming  more  recognized  also  among  our  native  population.  The 
importation  of  olive  ofl  has  steadily  and  notably  increased  during  the 
last  two  decades. 

The  olive-oil  industry  in  California  is  still  in  its  infancy.  It  has 
had  a  checkered  career  and  passed  through  periods  of  inflation,  when 
planting  was  general  in  sections  where  the  climate  and  localities  were 
altogether  unsuitabls,  so  that  hi  many  places  planting  had  to  be 
stopped  and  many  of  the  trees  previously  planted  had  to  be  rooted 
out. 

The  planting  of  olive  trees  in  unsuitable  conditions,  inexperience 
in  the  cultural  methods  and  in  the  best  ways  of  preparing  the  oil, 
the  fact  that  the  olive  tree  required  many  years  before  bearing  full 
crops,  the  scarcity  of  labor  existing  in  that  State,  while  the  gathering 
of  the  olives  is  an  operation  that  has  to  be  performed  by  hand,  aJj 
these  facts  show  that  the  conditions  of  olive  culture  in  California  are 
not  such  as  to  enable  it  to  supply  this  commodity  at  a  reasonable  cost 
in  any  quantity  adequate  to  the  requirements  of  consumption. 

Although  the  production  of  olive  oil  in  California  is  stated  to  have 
been  of  920,000  gallons  in  1911,  or  a  little  more  than  the  increase 
(703,617  gallons)  shown  by  the  consumption  of  imported  olive  oil  in 
fiscal  year  1911,  against  1910,  its  wholesale  cost,  which  averages 
about  $2.40  per  gallon,  against  $1.90  for  the  imported,  puts  it  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  consumers  who  mostly  need  this  commodity. 

If  the  price  of  olive  oil  is  not  reasonable  and  not  easily  accessible  to 
consumers  of  small  means,  who,  with  normal  crops,  can  obtain  im- 
ported olive  oil  of  good  quality  at  $1.75  per  gallon,  other  vegetable 
oils  of  less  cost  and  lower  value  regarding  both  health  and  nourish- 
ing qualities  will  replace  the  use  of  olive  oil  among  the  less  fortunate 
classes. 


106  TAKIPF   HEAB12STGS. 

PARAGRAPH  6— ABGOLS. 

For  a  number  of  years  the  people  of  this  country  have  had  to  pay 
exorbitant  duties  on  olive  oil  simply  for  the  protection  of  a  very  small 
number  of  growers,  who,  notwithstanding  this  heavy  protection,  have 
not  materially  increased  the  output  or  made  a  success  of  olive-oil 
production;  and,  as  judging  from  the  experience  of  the  past  and  of 
the  conditions  relating  to  this  production  in  California  there  is  not 
the  slightest  hope  that  California  will  ever  be  able  to  supply  the  de- 
mand of  this  article  at  a  logical  cost,  it  is  evident  how  unwise  and 
unjust  would  be  the  continuation  of  such  high  rates  as  are  assessed 
at  present  on  olive  oil,  especially  in  view  of  the  increased  cost  of  this 
commodity  experienced  during  the  last  few  years,  owing  to  shortage 
of  production  in  the  countries  from  whence  it  is  imported. 

In  the  readjustment  of  the  duty  on  olive  oil,  the  criterion  that  this 
is  a  necessary  article  of  food  for  a  large  number  of  our  population 
should  first  of  all  be  borne  in  mind,  and  that  as  such  it  should  not  be 
burdened  with  a  heavy  duty. 

Another  important  condition  is  that  the  duty  should  be  so  framed 
as  to  encourage  the  use  of  olive  oil  in  the  original  package  in  which 
it  is  shipped  to  this  country,  so  that  the  consumer  may  have  a  better 
guaranty  than  is  now  possible,  even  taking  into  account  the  beneficial 
effects  of  the  enactment  of  the  pure-food  law,  which  certainly  pre- 
vents the  importation  and  interstate  commerce  of  adulterated  oil, 
but  even  in  those  States  where  pure-food  regulations  exist  does  not 
prevent  the  reduction  of  an  olive  oil  of  high  quality  with  one  of  low 
quality,  or  the  mixture  of  olive  oil  with  other  vegetable  oils,  pro  ;ded 
they  are  sold  as  compounds,  while  often  (for  instance,  in  the  restaur- 
ants, where  the  oil  is  not  supplied  to  the  consumer  in  an  original  pack- 
age) the  supply  of  a  mixed  oil,  ostensibly  as  olive  or  salad  oil,  but 
without  any  statement  as  to  the  nature  of  the  product,  is  not  pre- 
vented by  any  law. 

This  chamber,  in  order  to  submit  to  this  honorable  committee  an 
unbiased  report  on  the  subject  of  the  revision  of  the  duties  on  olive 
oil,  heard,  through  its  tariff  committee,  at  a  special  hearing,  many  of 
the  most  important  distributors  of  olive  oil  in  this  country,  who  an- 
swered a  set  of  specific  questions.  From  the  replies  received  the 
fol] owing  conclusions  have  been  arrived  at: 

(a)  That  the  present  duties  on  olive  oil  are  exorbitant  and  ought  to 
be  reduced. 

(6)  That  a  reduction  of  them  will  not  affect  unfavorably  any  Ameri- 
can industry. 

(c)  That  no  ad  valorem  rates  should  be  assessed  on  olive  oil. 

(d)  That  the  majority  of  distributors  are  in  favor  of  a  uniform  rate 
of  specific  duty  on  olive  oil,  irrespective  of  the  kind  or  size  of  package 
In  which  it  is  imported;  i.  e.,  a  uniform  rate  per  gallon  for  ooth  oil 
imported  in  bulk  and  oil  imported  in  bottles,  jars,  tins,  etc. 

(e)  That  the  majority  are  in  favor  of  a  uniform  rate  of  25  cents 
per  gallon. 

Sufficient  has  already  been  stated  on  paragraphs  a  and  6  to  render 
superfluous  further  argument  on  the  issues  implied  in  said  para- 
graphs. 

Unanimous  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  distributors 
heard  against  the  assessment  of  any  ad  valorem  rate  as  proposed  for 


SCHEDULE  A.  107 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

ofl  in  bulk  in  H.  R.  20182,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining 
market  values  in  the  countries  from  whence  this  commodity  is  de- 
rived, the  market  value  differing  considerably  according  to  grades 
and  other  factors  not  easily  ascertainable  in  markets  which  are  not 
always  in  a  high  developed  condition  and  often  subject  to  fluctua- 
tions, and  also  because  of  the  objectionable  feature  of  fines,  necessa- 
rily implied  in  such  form  of  duty  assessment,  which  often  makes  the 
importer  the  scapegoat  of  unavoidable  discrepancies,  through  no 
fault  of  his. 

The  reason  why  a  uniform  rate  both  on  oil  in  bulk  and  in  cases  is 
recommended  is  one  of  equitv  and  of  the  necessity  of  avoiding  the 
unjustifiable  discrimination  that  the  present  system  of  duty  mam- 
tains  between  oil  in  bulk  and  oil  in  bottles,  jars,  tins,  etc.,  irrespective 
of  Quality  and  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  oil  imported  in  the  smaller 
packages. 

Olive  oil  in  bottles  or  other  small  packages  is  already  in  the  matter 
of  cost  per  gallon,  owing  to  the  higher  cost  of  its  packing,  higher 
freight,  and  of  the  duty  of  40  per  cent  on  the  containers  in  the  case  of 
oil  in  bottles,  at  a  disadvantage  in  comparison  with  oil  in  bulk,  and 
should  not  be  made  to  bear,  as  at  present,  the  addition  of  a  higher 
fiscal  burden. 

The  difference  of  cost  of  olive  oil,  of  identical  quality  and  brand, 
by  reason  of  the  different  package  in  which  it  is  put  up,  reaches  in 
some  cases  as  much  as  43  cents,  and  is  never  below  15  cents  per  gal- 
lon, to  the  disadvantage  of  the  oil  imported  in  tins.  To  be  more 
exact,  this  difference  is:  For  cases  containing  2  tins  of  6  gallons  each, 
equal  to  15  cents  per  gallon;  for  cases  containing  12  one-gallon  tins, 
equal  to  18  cents  per  gallon;  for  cases  containing  24  one-half  gallon 
tins,  equal  to  23  cents  per  gallon;  for  cases  containing  48  quart  tins, 
equal  to  28  cents;  and  for  cases  containing  96  pint  tins,  equal  to  43 
cents  per  gallon. 

In  the  case  of  bottles,  which  are  subject  to  a  duty  of  40  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  this  difference  in  cost  is  even  more  striking,  and  both 
encourage  unfair  competition  to  the  advantage  of  the  oil  in  bulk,  and 
also  a  loss  to  the  revenue. 

The  discrimination  against  cased  oil  by  the  present  tariff  is  not, 
however,  the  only  argument  for  which  a  uniform  rate  is  recommended 
on  olive  oil,  irrespective  of  how  it  is  packed. 

A  still  more  valid  argument  is  that  olive  oil  imported  in  tins  or 
bottles  gives  a  better  guarantee,  practically  a  Government  guarantee, 
to  the  consumer  not  only  of  the  purity,  but  also  of  the  quality,  of  the 
oil  imported,  such  as  only  the  original  imported  package  can  assure, 
encouraging  the  consumption  of  oil  of  better  quality,  which  is  essen- 
tial to  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  this  healthful  commodity. 

The  present  tariff  indirectly  favors  the  illegitimate  competition  of 
adulterated  or  mixed  oils,  in  the  preparation  of  which  is  used  the 
largest  part  of  the  olive  oil  imported  in  bulk,  chiefly  represented  by 
oil  of  strong  flavor  and  odor,  fit  only  for  blending. 

A  uniform  rate  is  therefore  respectfully  recommended  by  this 
chamber  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer,  of  revenue,  of  equity,  and 
of  hygiene,  and  this  chamber  recommends,  further,  that  the  rate  be 
fixed  at  25  cents  per  gallon,  which  is  ample  protection  to  domestic 


108  TABIFP   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  &-ARGOLS. 

production  of  a  commodity  largely  used  and  which,  for  a  great  num- 
ber of  our  population,  is  one  of  prime  necessity. 

Containers — i.  e.,  bottles  or  jugs — at  present  subject  to  a  duty  of 
40  per  cent,  should  be  assessed  with  a  specific  and  not  with  an  ad 
valorem  rate  and  exempted  from  duty  when  bearing  the  brand  or  the 
name  of  the  manufacturer  in  such  manner  that  it  can  not  be  removed, 
thus  rendering  the  containers  unfit  for  further  commercial  use. 

Olive  oil  for  mechanical  or  manufacturing  purposes,  rendered  unfit 
for  use  as  food  by  such  means  as  shall  be  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  and  under  such  regulations  as  he  shall  prescribe, 
should  be  continued  on  the  free  list,  where  it  has  been  under  previous 
tariffs,  this  being  a  raw  material  required  for  the  textile  mills  (which 
used  in  1908,  according  to  T.  S.  Todd,  1,610,000  pounds  of  castile 
soap  manufactured  from  olive  oil)  as  well  as  for  the  soap  and  leather 
manufacturers.  A  duty  on  such,  however  small,  would  necessarily 
react  in  an  increase  in  tne  cost  of  the  products  of  said  manufacturers, 
which  enter  largely  into  the  consumption  of  the  masses. 

Castile  soap. — Upon  this  commodity,  which  is  especially  popular 
among  consumers,  originating  from  countries  where  olive  oil  is  pro- 
duced, this  article  being  manufactured  from  low-grade  olive  oil  or 
olive  roots  and  being  demanded  for  its  special  features  largely  by  a 
class  of  consumers  of  small  means,  who  should  not  be  burdened  with 
a  high  duty  on  an  article  so  promo  tive  of  the  hygienic  habit  of  cleanli- 
ness, the  present  duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound  should  be  lightened, 
considering  the  advantage  already  enjoyed  by  the  manufacturers  in 
getting  the  raw  material  necessary  for  its  making,  free  from  duty. 

The  proposed  duty  of  15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  or  not  less  than  1 
cent  per  pound,  contained  in  H.  R.  20182,  is  ample  protection  to  the 
domestic  manufacturer,  who  sells  his  article  at  a  lower  price  than  the 
importer,  still  making  more  than  a  fair  profit,  while  the  imported 
article  can  not  compete  advantageously,  as  far  as  cost  goes,  with  the 
domestic  soaps,  and  can  hold  its  own  only  through  its  superior 
quality  and  tne  small  margin  of  profit  by  which  it  is  sold. 

Crude  glycerin. — The  wide  and  ever- increasing  use  of  glycerin  in 
the  manufacture  of  nitroexplosives,  in  the  finishing  of  leather,  in  the 
curing  of  tobacco,  in  printing  and  dyeing,  in  the  preparation  of  liq- 
uors, toilet  articles,  and  medicines,  and  also  for  mechanical  purposes, 
shows  how  this  article  is  so  identified,  not  only  with  the  important 
domestic  industry  of  its  refinery  (with  a  production,  according  to  the 
census  of  1909,  of  17,000  tons,  not  including  the  glycerin  consumed 
in  the  establishments  where  made,  which  brings  the  consumption  to 
an  estimated  total  of  40,000  tons),  but  with  so  many  branches  of  our 
industrial  life  that  it  is  essential  the  importation  of  crude  glycerin 
should  not  be  burdened  with  a  higher  rate  than  the  present,  of  1  cent 
per  pound,  especially  considering  the  increased  cost  of  the  raw  material 
that  has  ruled  of  late  years. 

This  chamber,  therefore,  recommends  that  the  present  rate  on 
crude  glycerin  remain  unchanged. 

Medicinal  compounds. — The  rates  of  duty  on  articles  used  for 
medicinal  purposes  and  considered  vital  to  health  should  be  materially 
reduced. 

At  present  medicinal  preparations  containing  alcohol  are  taxed  at 
55  cents  per  pound,  a  rate  equivalent  to  over  60  per  cent  ad  valorem, 


SCHEDULE  A.  109 

PARAGRAPH  6— ABOOLS. 

which  is  exorbitant,  the  alcohol  in  said  preparations  being  used  solely 
as  a  solvent  and  means  of  preservation  for  the  essential  therapeutic 
constituents. 

As  this  class  of  goods  includes  medicines  essential,  either  as  pre- 
ventative  against  or  curative  of  many  kinds  of  illnesses  to  which  the 
poor  people,  and  especially  those  living  in  unhealthy  climates,  are 
more  subject,  owing  to  the  less  hygienic  conditions  and  absence  of 
comfort  under  which  they  are  obliged  to  live,  a  reduction  of  the 
present  rate  of  55  cents  per  pound  to  10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  equivalent  to  about  a  30  per  cent  duty,  such  as  con- 
templated by  H.  R.  20182,  is  strongly  recommended;  also  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  rate  on  other  medicinal  preparations  n.  s.  p.  f.  from  25  to 
15  per  cent. 

in  the  latter  paragraph  is  included  mannit,  a  product  not  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States,  which  is  becoming  of  wider  use  among 
a  numerous  class  of  our  population  as  a  gentle  cathartic,  and  also 
finds  employment  in  the  manufacture  of  nitroexplosives. 

On  calcined  magnesia,  a  medicinal  article  of  wide  use,  at  present 
subject  to  a  rate  of  7  cents  per  pound,  equivalent  to  about  44  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  the  duty  should  be  reduced  at  least  50  per  cent,  i.  e., 
to  3£  cents  per  pound,  as  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182. 

The  United  States  already  holds  an  important  position  in  the  manu- 
facture of  magnesia  salts  and  is  not  wanting  in  natural  advantages  in 
this  direction.  Magnesite,  the  raw  material  from  which  this  article 
is  manufactured,  notwithstanding  the  large  proportion  in  which  it  is 
imported,  is  mined  in  large  quantities  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and,  with 
the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  possibility  of  lower  freights, 
this  mineral  will  be  able  to  reach  the  eastern  centers  of  manufacture 
in  competition  with  the  imported. 

The  small  amount  of  calcined  magnesia  imported  (57,393  pounds 
in  fiscal  year  1910)  shows  that  in  the  production  of  this  article  this 
country  has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  foreign  article. 

Calomel  is  another  indispensable  therapeutic  article,  now  subject 
to  a  duty  of  35  per  cent,  the  duty  on  which  should  be  reduced,  as 
proposed  in  H.  R.  20182,  to  15  per  cent. 

This,  as  other  mercurial  therapeutic  compounds,  is  manufactured 
in  the  United  States  (which  have  the  advantage  of  a  notable  produc- 
tion of  quicksilver)  in  quantities  sufficient  to  cover,  and  probably 
above,  the  requirements  of  consumption,  so  that  in  this  case  protec- 
tion is  not  only  superfluous  but  unadvisable,  the  rate  of  15  per  cent 
contained  in  H.  R.  20182  being  hereby  indorsed. 

Perfumery. — The  prevailing  idea  that  the  articles  included  under 
this  paragraph  are  luxuries,  while  a  good  many  of  them,  such,  for 
instance,  as  hair  lotions,  mouth,  skin,  and  teeth  applications,  are 
only  articles  of  ordinary  comfort,  indispensable  for  reasons  of  hygiene 
and  cleanliness,  which  should  not  therefore  be  placed  outside  the 
reach  of  even  the  consumer  of  small  means,  have  caused  the  enact- 
ment of  the  present  exorbitant  duties,  especially  on  alcoholic  per- 
fumery, subject  to  60  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
while  nonalcoholic  is  charged  60  per  cent. 

These  practically  prohibitive  rates  for  many  of  the  imported  arti- 
cles, which  are  not  necessarily  luxuries,  but  demanded  simply  by 


110  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

reason  of  confidence  acquired  from  long  usage  and  attachment  to  a 
particular  brand,  have  defeated  their  purpose  both  as  a  revenue 
measure,  because  they  have  not  stimulated  importations,  and  as  a 
protective  measure,  because  the  exclusion  of  many  articles  of  foreign 
perfumery,  represented  by  proprietary  or  patent  brands,  by  a  duty 
that  increases  their  cost  often  100  per  cent,  has  not  benefited  domestic 
production,  by  reason  of  the  proprietary  character  of  the  imported 
articles,  of  which  the  high  rates  discouraged  importation. 

This  chamber  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of 
revenue  to  reduce  the  duties  on  these  commodities  to  more  reason- 
able rates,  because  the  increased  importations  thus  stimulated, 
without  injuring  domestic  production,  would  increase  the  revenue. 
The  foreign  article,  owing  to  its  proprietary  or  patented  character, 
does  not  compete  with  the  domestic.  It  therefore  recommends 
that  the  duty  on  alcoholic  perfumery  be  fixed  at  60  cents  per  pound 
and  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  on  nonalcoholic  perfumery,  in  the 
production  of  which  the  United  States  possesses  natural  advantages, 
because  of  abundance  of  some  of  the  necessary  materials  (fats,  soap, 
glycerin,  powders,  etc.)  40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  it  was  in  the 
Wilson  tariff. 

Sulphur. — It  would  be  superfluous  to  dwell  upon  the  advisa- 
bility of  maintaining  crude  sulphur  on  the  free  list,  when  the  exten- 
sive use  of  this  mineral,  especially  in  the  manufacture  of  gunpowder, 
in  the  bleaching  of  wood  pulp  and  textile  fibers,  in  the  vulcanizing 
of  rubber,  in  the  making  of  fumigating  sticks,  matches,  etc.,  in  the 
manufacture  of  sulphuric  acid  where  the  pyrites  are  not  economi- 
cally obtainable,  in  medicinal  use,  etc.,  is  considered. 

The  United  States  have  become,  since  the  beginning  of  the  last 
decade,  largely  productive  of  this  mineral,  the  output  of  the  Louisi- 
ana sulphur  deposits  being  so  important  (in  1908  the  production 
was  estimated  at  369,444  tons)  as  to  easily  cover  domestic  consump- 
tion, so  that  the  importations  from  Sicily,  which  up  to  1902  were  the 
principal  source,  having  supplied  in  that  fiscal  year  as  much  as 
163,571  tons,  have  since  fallen  off  to  a  paltry  8,753  tons  hi  fiscal 
year  1911. 

The  cost  of  production  of  the  Louisiana  brimstone,  although  not 
stated  for  recent  years,  is,  owing  to  the  ingenious  mining  method  by 
which  it  is  extracted,  much  lower  than  in  the  case  of  the  sulphur 
mined  in  Sicily,  where,  besides  other  disadvantages,  a  considerable 
amount  of  sulphur  ore  has  to  be  burned  and  is  therefore  lost  in  the 
process  of  extraction. 

Not  only  is  the  cost  of  production  of  brimstone  lower  in  Louisiana 
than  in  Sicily,  but  the  domestic  brimstone  is  obtained  at  a  higher 
decree  of  purity. 

The  United  States  are  already  exporting  more  sulphur  than  they 
import  (in  fiscal  year  1910,  45,595  tons,  against  29,329  imported), 
which  shows  that  in  the  production  of  this  mineral  this  country 
enjoys  natural  and  technical  advantages  to  render  any  protection 
not  only  superfluous  but  dangerous,  as  certainly  over  95  per  cent  of 
the  production  is  controlled  by  one  concern. 

Most  of  the  Sicilian  sulphur  imported  into  the  United  States  is 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  gunpowder  and  in  bleaching  wood  pulp, 


SCHEDULE   A.  Ill 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

the  latter  especially  an  industry  which  appeals  for  free  raw  materials, 
owing  to  the  wide  scope  of  its  bearing  on  the  economic  life  of  the 
Nation. 

Refined  sulphur,  which  under  the  present  tariff  is  taxed  $4  per 
ton,  should,  for  like  reasons,  be  placed  on  the  free  list,  but  especially 
so  in  order  to  avoid  in  future  a  repetition  of  the  unsuccessful  attempt 
that  was  made  about  a  year  ago  to  have  the  purer  grades  of  brim- 
stone classified  as  refined  sulphur  and  thus  made  subject  to  duty. 

This  chamber,  therefore,  recommends  that  sulphur  in  any  form  be 
exempted  from  duty. 

Talc. — This  article,  which  under  the  present  tariff  is  admitted  free 
of  duty  only  in  a  crude  or  unground  condition,  is  subject  to  a  duty 
of  35  per  cent  when  ground. 

Although  talc  is  produced  largely  in  the  United  States  (about 
120,000  tons  annually),  the  quality  of  the  domestic  talc,  chiefly 
fibrous  and  used  as  a  filler  in  paper  making  and  in  paints,  is  different 
from  the  imported,  which  serves,  as  a  rule,  a  different  purpose. 
The  notable  difference  in  cost  between  imported  talc — selling,  the 
Italian  from  $35  to  $40  per  ton  and  the  French  from  $15  to  $25— 
and  domestic  talc,  selling  as  low  as  $9  at  the  mine,  shows  clearly 
the  difference  in  the  quality  and  principal  use  of  the  two  articles. 

The  imported  talc  is  used  chiefly  in  the  preparation  of  toilet 
powders,  which,  on  account  of  their  extensive  use  among  all  classes, 
can  not  be  considered  a  luxury,  but  an  article  of  necessity  in  the 
household. 

For  this  purpose  whiteness  and  fineness  are  required  in  the  talc, 
and  these  qualifications  the  imported  article  possesses  in  a  greater 
measure  than  the  domestic,  to  which  it  is  therefore  preferred. 

The  consumption  of  ground  talc  is  increasing  with  the  increase 
of  population. 

In  the  Dingley  tariff  ground  talc  was  taxed  at  the  rate  of  20  per 
cent.  The  act  of  1909  increased  the  impost  to  35  per  cent,  with  the 
result  that  importations,  which  had  averaged  annually  in  the  pre- 
vious three  years  about  16,833,000  pounds,  fell  in  the  following  two 
years  to  about  15,518,000  pounds,  showing  that  the  increase  of 
duty  was  responsible  for  the  falling  off  of  importations,  and  therefore 
of  revenue,  on  this  article. 

This  chamber  respectfully  recommends  that  talc  in  a  crude  or 
unground  condition  be  maintained  on  the  free  list,  while  the  duty  on 
ground  talc  be  reduced  to  15  per  cent. 

Sienna. — The  importance  of  lightening  fiscal  burdens  on  pigments 
required  in  the  preparation  of  paints,  which  absolve  not  only  an 
esthetic  function,  out  the  more  important  one  of  preserving  and  secur- 
ing a  longer  duration  of  the  materials  to  which  they  are  applied,  is 
self-evident  and  in  line  with  the  policy  of  conservation,  so  much 
insisted  upon  in  these  days,  when  the  consequences  of  a  wasteful  past 
of  many  national  resources  are  beginning  to  be  felt. 

Sienna  earths,  like  umbers  and  ochers,  enter  in  paints  used  princi- 
pally for  staining  wood.  They  are  imported  chiefly  in  the  crude  state 
and  powdered  here  and  made  ready  for  use. 

American  mines  produce  a  lower  grade  of  sienna  than  the  imported 
article,  as  shown  by  the  marked  difference  in  price.  While  domestic 


112  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  6— ARGOLS. 

sienna  is  quoted  from  $50  to  $60  per  ton,  the  imported  sells  from  $80 
to  $140. 

At  present  crude  sienna  earth,  i.  e.,  when  not  powdered,  washed,  or 
pulverized,  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  one-eighth  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

The  milling  of  imported  sienna  gives  employment  to  American 
labor,  a  reason  which,  together  with  the  fact  that  raw  material  of 
this  class  can  not  be  replaced  by  domestic  production,  ought  to  be 
sufficient  to  exempt  it  from  duty. 

Should,  however,  a  duty  be  aeemed  unavoidable  for  revenue  pur- 
poses, this  chamber  recommends  that  the  present  specific  rate  be 
maintained  in  preference  to  the  proposed  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  con- 
tained in  H.  R.  20182,  and  also  that  the  word  "washed"  be  omitted 
from  the  first  portion  of  paragraph  47,  Schedule  A,  of  the  present 
tariff,  because  a  considerate  part  of  the  sienna  earth  imported  in 
lumps  is  naturally  washed  and  should  not  thereby  be  made  to  incur 
the  classification  of  powdered  or  artificially  washed  sienna,  and  thus 
be  subjected  to  the  higher  rate  of  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
without  having  undergone  any  process  that  has  materially  enhanced 
its  value. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  crude  sienna,  in  that  of  the  powdered  also,  a 
specific  rate,  as  in  the  present  tariff,  is  preferable  to  an  ad  valorem 
rate. 

BRIEFS  SUBMITTED  BY  TARTAR  CHEMICAL  CO. 

The  Tartar  Chemical  Co.  filed  the  following  papers  with  the  com- 
mittee : 

RATES    OP  DUTY   ON   TARTARIC   ACID   AND   CREAM   OF  TARTAR. 
[Tartar  Chemical  Co.,  manufacturers  of  cream  of  tartar  and  tartarlc  acid,  No.  135  Wflllam  Street.] 

NEW  YORK,  January  2,  191S. 
COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Bowse  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS:  In  relation  to  the  proposed  increase  in  duty  on  our  raw  material  and  the 
decreases  in  the  duties  on  our  manufactured  products,  we  desire  to  meet  your  com- 
mittee in  a  right  spirit  and  to  ask  you  to  consider  the  following: 

Assuming  that  bill  H.  R.  20182  may  serve  as  basis  of  the  new  tariff  legislation,  it  is 
stated  in  Paragraph  I,  to  reduce  tartaric  acid  to  3  cents  per  pound  against  the  existing 
rate  of  5  cents  and  the  Dingley  tariff  rate  of  7  cents;  Paragraph  IX,  to  reduce  cream  of 
tartar  to  2i  cents  per  pound  against  the  existing  rate  of  5  cents  and  the  Dingley  tariff 
rate  of  6  cents;  Paragraph  XI,  to  increase  the  duty  on  argols  from  5  per  cent  (present 
rate)  to  10  per  cent  (or  100  per  cent  increase). 

Argols  are  the  crude  material  from  which  the  two  above-named  products  are  made 
in  this  country,  and  of  which  at  least  98  per  cent  must  be  imported  from  wine-pro- 
ducing countries— principally  France  and  Italy. 

We  produce  cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid  in  such  proportions  that  the  average 
duty  would  be  2.7  cents  per  pound,  from  which  must  be  deducted  the  duty  on  the  raw 
material  of  10  per  cent,  and  this,  at  the  present  price  of  argols,  would  be  1.7  cents, 
leaving  an  apparent  protection  of  1  cent  per  pound,  which  the  foreign  manufacturer 
can  far  more  than  offset  in  the  lower  cost  of  his  raw  material,  in  addition  to  which  he 
has  the  far  lower  cost  of  all  classes  of  labor,  which  in  the  competing  countries  is  one- 
half  of  what  we  pay,  and  in  some  cases  even  less  than  half. 

Under  the  present  tariff  the  foreign  manufacturers  have  an  advantage  of  at  least  4| 
cents  per  pound  on  cream  of  tartar  and  6  cents  on  tartaric  acid,  but  with  the  proposed 
increase  pi  duty  on  raw  material  it  will  be  over  5  cents  on  cream  of  tartar  and  6|  cents 
on  tartaric  acid. 

_  1.  They  use  a  lower  testing  grade  of  crude  material,  which  will  not  bear  transporta- 
tion here  because  of  chemical  disintegration  before  it  could  be  brought  here  and 


SCHEDULE  JL. 


113 


PABAGBAPH  6— ABQOLS. 

employed.  To  prepare  these  goods  for  transportation  necessitates  special  prepara- 
tion, and  the  handling,  packing,  and  freight  charges  are  the  aame  on  crude  material 
testing  25  per  cent  as  on  the  argols  averaging  70  per  cent,  which  latter  we  must  employ 
here  for  the  reasons  just  mentioned. 

The  crude  material  employed  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  costs  them  2J  cents  per 
pound,  based  on  100  per  cent  purity,  less  than  it  would  cost  us  here. 

2.  Labor  cost  is  unquestionably  higher  here  than  with  the  foreign  manufacturer 
situated   in   the   argol-producing    countries — generally   in   southern   Europe.     We 
employ  skilled  labor  steadily  in  our  works,  as  well  as  a  large  number  of  ordinary  work- 
men, who,  as  you  know,  are  paid  more  than  double  here  than  in  France,  Italy,  or 
Spain.    This  difference  amounts  to  1.2  cents  per  pound. 

3.  Italy  has  an  export  duty,  which  amounts  to  about  3  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  argols, 
while  on  the  lower  grades,  which  they  mostly  employ,  it  amounts  to  6  per  cent  or  more. 
This  differential  duty  amounts  to  an  average  of  0.6  cent  per  pound.    Besides  this, 
all  foreign  manufacturing  countries  have  a  protective  duty  on  the  manufactured 
products. 

4.  The  manufacturer  in  the  United  States  is  further  handicapped  by  the  much  higher 
cost  in  this  country  of  the  various  chemicals  and  other  materials  employed  in  the 
process  of  manufacture  compared  with  those  in  Europe. 

Recapitulation  of  advantages  of  foreign  manufacture. 


Per  pound 
cream  of 
tartar. 

Per  pound 
tartaric 
acid. 

Crude  material  cost  

Cents. 
1.88 

Cents. 
2.87 

Labor  

1.20 

1.20 

Chemicals  and  supplies      

.65 

.55 

American  duty        

.75 

.94 

Italian  export  duty  -  

4.38 
.45 

5.56 
.60 

With  additional  duty  as  proposed  

4.83 
.75 

6.16 
.94 

Against  a  proposed  duty                   

5.58 
2.50 

7.10 
3.00 

Advantage  to  foreign  manufacturers  under  proposed  duty  

3.08 

4.10 

REVENUE  ACCRUING  TO  THE   COUNTRY  ON   PROPOSED  TARIFF  CHANGES. 

Estimated  revenue  from  duties  on  argols,  cream  of  tartar,  and  tartaric  acid  under 
the  proposed  bill  is  figured  as  $312,250,  of  which  $300,000  is  on  crude  material,  but 
for  the  reasons  stated  above  this  latter  sum  will  fall  away  if  our  domestic  factories 
are  forced  to  reduce  their  output.  The  Government  will  not  be  the  gainer  in  the 
revenue  from  the  importation  of  the  manufactured  product.  Even  under  existing 
tariff  the  importations  of  tartaric  acid  have  increased  from  36,389  pounds  in  1907  to 
over  300,000  pounds  in  1911,  and  on  cream  of  tartar  from  6,000  pounds  in  1907  to  over 
100,000  pounds  in  1912. 

Combinations  of  large  European  manufacturers  have  been  going  on;  are  legal  and 
encouraged  by  their  governments;  and  we  allege  on  best  information  and  belief,  from 
facts  in  our  possession,  that  the  people  of  this  country  would  not  receive  benefit  of  any 
reduction  in  the  tariff  of  the  United  States,  but  on  the  contrary  a  combination  of 
large  European  manufacturers  of  cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid  would  result,  and 
prices  be  increased  after  makers  in  this  country  cease  to  exist.  Tentative  statements 
to  this  effect  are  in  our  possession,  and  should  you  desire  any  substantiation  of  the 
above-cited  facts  we  will  gladly  submit  it. 

We  have  been  in  business  over  30  years  Capital  employed  is  over  $2,000,000,  and 
our  annual  disbursements  for  pay  roll  and  other  expenses  are  about  $500,000. 

For  the  above-explained  reasons  we  pray  that  you  allow  the  duties  to  remain  as  they 
are,  but  if  it  seems  necessary  for  you  to  increase  the  revenue  as  estimated,  it  will  be 

78959°— VOL  1 — 13 8 


114  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  8— BLEACHING  POWDEB. 

obtained  by  advancing  the  duty  on  crude  material  from  5  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  10 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  proposed,  and  continuing  the  present  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound 
on  manufactured  cream  of  tartar  and  filing  the  duty  on  tartaric  acid  at  6  cents  per 
pound  to  make  the  equivalent. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

TARTAR  CHEMICAL  Co., 
WILLIAM  C.  VOIGHT,  Treasurer. 


TARTAR  CHEMICAL  Co., 
Brooklyn,  N.  T.,  January  25,  1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WATS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN  :  On  page  101  is  printed  the  memorial  of  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce in  New  York. 

The  seventh  paragraph  begins  with  our  raw  material,  argols,  and  wine  lees  and 
goes  on  to  the  products  manufactured  therefrom. 

This  memorial  favors  leaving  the  duty  on  the  raw  material,  where  it  now  is.  and 
reducing  the  tariff  on  cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid  from  5  cents  per  pound  to 
3  cents  per  pound  on  tartaric  acid  and  2£  cents  per  pound  on  cream  of  tartar. 

This  would  leave  the  European  manufacturers,  who  almost  wholly  work  in  agree- 
ment, as  open  a  market  here  for  their  manufactured  products  as  would  H.  R.  bill 
20182,  and  this  is  of  course  the  desire  of  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

This  chamber  is  subsidized  by  the  Italian  Government  and  is  designed  to  promote 
the  industries  of  Italy  rather  than  of  this  country.  On  pages  282  and  284  of  Tariff 
Schedule  A,  No.  2  Hearings,  you  will  find  admissions  from  Mr.  MarianitoMr.  Palmer 
that  the  Italian  Government  subsidizes  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  New 
York.  Naturally,  therefore,  this  institution  favors  throwing  down  the  bars  here  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Italian  industries  without  regard  to  the  consequences  to  the  same 
industries  of  this  country. 

Very  respectfully,  TARTAR  CHEMICAL  Co., 

EDWARD  McC.  PETERS, 

Vice  President. 
PARAGRAPH   7. 

Blacking  of  all  kinds,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  all  creams  and 
preparations  for  cleaning  or  polishing  boots  and  shoes,  twenty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 
For  blacking,  of  all  kinds,  etc.,  see  also  Park  &  Tilford  et  al.,  page  66. 

PARAGRAPH   8. 

Bleaching  powder,  or  chloride  of  lime,  one-fifth  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

BLEACHING   POWDER. 

THE  DOW  CHEMICAL  CO.,  MIDLAND,  MICH.,  SUBMITS  BRIEF 
REGARDING  BLEACHING  POWDER. 

By  the  tariff  act  of  1897  bleaching  powder  was  taken  off  the  free 
list  and  a  duty  of  two-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound  was  placed  upon  it. 
Prior  to  this  change  the  price  of  bleaching  powder,  in  the  United 
States,  was  about  2  cents  per  pound.  Either  simultaneously  with 
the  placing  on  this  two-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound  duty,  or  shortly 
afterwards,  the  United  Alkali  Co.  of  Great  Britain,  who  controlled 
more  than  90  per  cent  of  the  bleach  sold  within  the  United  States, 
lowered  the  price  in  the  United  States  to  about  $1.87  per  100  pounds 
and  also  paid  the  import  duty. 

The  placing  of  this  small  import  duty  that  was  only  about  10  per 
cent  of  the  ruling  price  proved  to  be  sufficient  to  inspire  enough  con- 
fidence among  capitalists  so  that  two  bleaching-powder  plants  were 


SCHEDULE   A.  115 

PARAGRAPH  10— CHARCOAL. 

erected  in  the  United  States,  one  at  Niagara  Falls  and  the  other  at 
Midland,  Mich.;  both  plants  increased  their  capacity  from  time  to 
time  until  competition  became  very  keen  and  prices  were  reduced  to 
$1.25  per  100  pounds,  which  is  the  ruling  price  to-day  on  yearly  con- 
tracts, the  price  being  substantially  the  same  in  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain. 

The  United  Alkali  Co.  of  Great  Britain,  and  not  the  consumer,  is 

Eaying  the  two-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound  now  assessed  on  imported 
leach,  and  if  the  duty  is  reduced  we  do  not  think  that  any  more 
bleaching  powder  would  be  imported  or  the  price  to  the  consumer 
reduced,  for  the  following  reason: 

A  bleaching-powder  plant  costs  several  times  the  annual  output  of 
this  plant  and  if  the  selling  price  changes  10  per  cent,  it  would  only 
affect  the  return  on  the  investment  in  the  bleaching-powder  plant  by 
a  small  part  of  the  10  per  cent.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  proposed 
reduction  in  the  import  duty  will  cause  any  plants  now  built  to  dis- 
continue their  operations,  and  thereby  permit  any  increased  amounts 
of  bleaching  powder  to  be  brought  into  this  country  from  abroad, 
neither  would  the  prices  be  likely  to  change  for  the  reason  that  the 
selling  price  at  the  present  tune  does  not  return  a  normal  profit  on  the 
investment  and  new  competitors  are  not  likely  to  enter  this  market 
and  thereby  cause  a  still  further  reduction  in  the  selling  price. 

To  summarize:  We  believe  the  present  import  duty  will  furnish  a 
larger  revenue  to  the  Government  than  a  lower  import  duty,  and  at 
the  same  tune  the  risk  of  an  American  industry  being  blotted  out  by 
a  foreign  monopoly  is  less  than  it  would  be  if  the  import  duty  were 
lower. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  Dow  CHEMICAL  Co., 
By  HUBERT  H.  Dow, 

General  Manager. 

MIDLAND,  MICH. 

PARAGRAPH  9. 

Blue  vitriol  or  sulphate  of  copper,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
See  W.  H.  Bowker,  page  416. 

PARAGRAPH  10. 

Charcoal  in  any  form,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act;  bone  char, 
suitable  for  use  in  decolorizing  sugars,  and  blood  char,  twenty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

CHARCOAL. 

PROTEST    OF   MICHIGAN   CARBON  WORKS    AGAINST  DUTY    ON 

CHARCOAI,  ETC. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  As  manufacturers  of  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char,  or  bone 
black,  we  beg  to  submit  our  most  earnest  protest  against  a  possible 
reduction  hi  the  duties  on  these  materials. 

At  the  present  tune  this  company  has  invested  in  the  portion  of 
its  plant  devoted  to  the  manufacture  of  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char, 
or  bone  black,  approximately  SI 00,000.  During  the  five-year  period 


116  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   10— CHARCOAL. 

ended  December  31,  1912,  the  net  profits  to  the  Michigan  Carbon 
Works,  in  the  production  of  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char,  or  bone 
black,  have  averaged  8.27  per  cent  on  the  actual  cash  capital  invested, 
with  no  deduction  whatever  for  depreciation  of  plant. 

Charcoal  (animal),  bone  char,  or  bone  black,  is  employed  principally 
for  decolorizing  purposes  in  the  refining  of  cane  sugar,  glucose,  and 
special  lubricating  oils.  It  is  not  used  in  the  beet-sugar  industry. 
Modern  methods  of  users  in  reburning  or  revivifying  the  material 
have  largely  reduced  the  consumption,  so  that  the  expense  for  bone 
black  per  barrel  of  sugar,  glucose,  or  lubricating  oil  produced  is  so 
small  as  to  be  practically  negligible.  In  the  lubricatmg-oil  refining 
industry  bone  black  has  in  a  very  large  measure  been  replaced  by 
fuller's  earth. 

The  collection  of  bones  used  in  the  production  of  charcoal  (animal), 
bone  char,  or  bone  black,  gives  occupation  to  a  large  number  of  men 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  in  order  to  gather  and  secure  the 
material,  much  higher  prices  must  be  paid  than  in  Europe.  Further- 
more, the  labor  expense  in  the  production  of  bone  black  is  a  very 
large  item;  and  as  our  labor  is  now  being  paid  approximately  65  per 
cent  more  than  is  received  by  labor  abroad  doing  the  same  kind  of 
work,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  effect  of  a  reduction  in  the  present 
rate  of  duty. 

In  the  manufacture  of  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char  or  bone  black, 
there  is  produced  a  large  amount  of  by-products  now  available  and 
used  for  fertilizing  purposes.  In  recent  years  a  considerable  quantity 
of  bones  has  been  brought  to  this  country  from  South  America  to  be 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  bone  black.  In  the  event  of  any  reduc- 
tion in  the  present  duty,  these  bones  will  go  to  Canada  or  Europe  to 
be  made  into  bone  black  for  export  to  the  United  States,  and  not 
only  will  the  domestic  industry  be  injured,  many  men  deprived  of 
their  present  means  of  livelihood,  but  the  farmers  of  the  United 
States  will  suffer  the  loss  of  a  large  quantity  of  very  desirable  and 
much-needed  fertilizer  for  the  improvement  of  their  land,  now  obtain- 
able at  a  low  cost. 

As  the  industry  in  the  United  States  is  already  seriously  handi- 
capped and  in  anything  but  a  flourishing  condition,  we  therefore 
petition  that  the  present  rate  of  duty — 20  per  cent  ad  valorem — be 
retained  on  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char  or  bone  black,  not  suitable 
for  use  as  a  pigment. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MICHIGAN  CARBON  WORKS, 
By  GEO.  B.  BURTON,  Manager. 

DETROIT,  MICH.,  January  27,  1918. 


SCHEDULE  A.  117 

PABAGBAPH  1O— CHABCOAL. 

BRIEF  OF  HOLUNS  N.  RANDOLPH,  COUNSEL  FOR  THE  NATIONAL 
WOOD  CHEMICAL  ASSOCIATION. 

In  Re  Hearings  Before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  United 

States  Congress. 

ATLANTA,  GA.,  February  8,  191S. 

I  shall  be  very  brief  in  submitting  the  considerations  which  I  wish 
to  advance  in  this  matter.  The  National  Wood  Chemical  Association 
and  its  members  are  interested  in  the  chemical  schedule  of  the  pro- 
posed new  tariff  measure,  and  more  particularly  in  the  tariffs  on 
charcoal  and  its  related  products,  acetate  of  lime  and  wood  alcohol. 

The  present  duties  on  these  articles  are  as  follows:  Acetate  of  lime, 
25  per  cent;  charcoal,  20  per  cent:  wood  alcohol,  20  per  cent. 

These  articles  are  manufactured  at  about  100  works  in  the  United 
States,  the  factories  being  located  principally  in  Pennsylvania 
and  parts  of  New  York  State,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin;  with  an 
investment  of  approximately  $25,000,000  and  giving  employment 
and  support  to  aoout  75,000  people.  The  articles  are  made  from 
wood,  and  the  wood  which  is  used  to  a  large  extent  consists  of 
tops,  butts,  and  breaks  of  trees  which  have  been  cut  into  sawlogs, 
thereby  creating  from  what  would  otherwise  be  a  waste  material 
valuable  commercial  commodities  and  a  corresponding  field  for  the 
employment  of  American  labor.  It  is  believed  that  the  employment 
of  these  waste  tree  products  has  a  tendency  to  greatly  reduce  the 
danger  of  destructive  forest  fires,  and  to  that  extent  brings  about  a 
conservation  of  our  forests  rather  than  a  waste  of  wood. 

If  these  articles  were  placed  on  the  free  list  or  the  prevailing  rates 
of  duty  greatly  reduced,  it  would  result  in  the  building  of  a  large 
number  of  new  works  in  Canada,  where  wood  and  labor  are  about 
20  per  cent  cheaper  than  in  the  United  States.  The  inevitable  result 
would  be  to  exterminate  this  industry  in  the  United  States  and  force 
our  manufacturers  to  sustain  large  losses,  and  deprive  their  employees 
of  the  means  of  livelihood.  Canada,  with  its  vast  areas  of  cheap  raw 
material,  is  offering  every  encouragement  to  the  building  up  of  this 
industry  in  its  own  borders  by  paying  a  large  bounty  on  the  manu- 
facture of  charcoal  iron,  and  an  enormous  price  for  the  wood  alcohol 
used  for  denaturing  purposes.  The  Canadian  market  charcoal  is 
cheaper  than  the  markets  in  the  States,  returning  to  the  manufac- 
turer, it  is  estimated,  about  50  per  cent  more  than  is  realized  by  our 
home  industry. 

From  this  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  with  new  markets  open  to 
them  the  Canadian  production  will  increase  very  rapidly  and  their 
surplus  dumped  into  the  United  States,  which  could  only  result  in 
ruinous  competition. 

The  Canadian  duty  on  charcoal  at  the  present  time  is  17  per  cent, 
and  if  these  chemicals  were  manufactured  in  Canada  and  the  present 
rates  of  duty  in  the  United  States  removed  or  greatly  reduced,  we 
have  no  law  that  would  prevent  her  from  dumping  all  her  surplus 
product  into  this  country. 

For  the  information  of  the  committee,  I  will  state  that  in  the  manu- 
facture of  these  chemicals  about  60  to  75  per  cent  of  the  total  amount 
received  from  the  sales  thereof  is  expended  in  labor. 


118  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH— CHABCOAL. 

We  would  like  to  have  the  present  rates  of  duty  continued,  but  if  a 
change  is  deemed  imperative  we  suggest  that  the  duties  be  made 
specific  and  as  foUows:  Crude  wood  alcohol  (82  per  cent),  5  cents 
per  gallon;  refined  wood  alcohol,  all  grades,  10  cents  per  gallon; 
acetate  of  lime,  one-half  cent  per  pound;  formaldehyde,  2  cents  per 
pound;  charcoal,  1£  cents  per  oushel. 

No  demand  in  any  quarter  for  lower  duties  on  wood  chemicals 
has  so  far  manifested  itself,  and  so  far  as  known  prices  are  satisfactory 
to  the  consumers. 

The  above  facts  are  taken  from  evidence  submitted  at  the  hearings 
before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance,  March  19,  1912. 

But  little  more  needs  to  be  said.  We  have  here  a  typical  American 
industry,  and  one  which  has  been  created  from  our  waste  wood  pro- 
ducts and  by  the  wit  and  wisdom  and  thrift  of  the  people  living  in 
the  States  named.  The  art  and  trade  has  become  valuable,  and  to 
allow  it  to  be  destroyed  or  greatly  impaired  by  the  admission  of  com- 
petitive products  free  of  duty  from  Canada  would,  it  seems  to  me, 
be  without  justification,  particularly  so  as  there  is  no  complaint  or 
agitation  in  any  quarter  for  a  change  and  reduction  in  the  prevailing 
rates  of  duty. 

Finally,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Canadians  have  protected 
themselves  against  the  importation  of  these  products,  or  some  of 
them,  from  the  United  States  by  the  imposition  of  the  rates  of  tariff 
named,  at  least  on  charcoal.  For  all  of  which  reasons  it  is  respect- 
fully urged  that  the  present  rates  of  duty  be  aUowed  to  remain,  but 
if  as  stated  above  a  change  is  deemed  imperative,  then  we  respect- 
fuly  suggest  that  the  duties  be  made  specific  as  above  outlined. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

HOTJ.TNS  N.  RANDOLPH. 


ATLANTA,  GA.,  February  24,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  UNDERWOOD:  My  attention  has  been  called  by  one 
of  my  friends  to  a  mistake  I  made  in  my  little  brief  filed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  import  duties  on  charcoal  and  its  by-products.  I  stated 
therein  that  the  Canadian  market  for  charcoal  is  cheaper  than  in  the 
United  States.  In  this  I  find  I  am  mistaken.  The  Canadian  market 
is  higher  and  returns  the  manufacturer  a  much  better  average  per 
bushel  than  we  are  able  to  get  in  the  United  States ;  it  seems  also  that 
the  product  does  not  have  to  be  so  well  prepared.  Therefore,  in  the 
event  the  Canadian  manufacturers  produced  more  of  these  products 
than  their  markets  can  readily  absorb,  instead  of  reducing  the  price 
to  their  home  trade  they  would  use  the  United  States  and  its  con- 
sumers as  a  dumping  ground,  if  they  had  no  tariff  duties  to  confront 
on  importing  the  product  in  this  country. 

I  regret  this  mistake  and  hasten  to  correct  it  at  first  opportunity. 
With  kindest  regards.  I  am, 

Sincerely,  yours,  HOLLINS  N.  RANDOLPH. 


SCHEDULE   A.  119 

PARAGRAPH  10— CHARCOAL. 

PROTEST  OF  BAUGH  &  SONS  CO.,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA., 
AGAINST  THE  REMOVAL  OF  DUTIES  UPON  CHARCOAL,  BLOOD 
CHAR,  ETC. 

To  Hon.  Oscar  W.  Underwood,  Chairman,  and  Members  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 

In  the  matter  of  proposed  revision  and  amendment  of  Schedule  A 
of  the  present  tariff  act  so  as  to  remove  all  duties  payable  upon 
importations  of  charcoal,  blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone  black  not 
suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment,  and  so  as  to  make,  as  suggested  in 
House  bill  No.  20182,  the  tariff  act  under  the  head  of  free  list  read: 
"85.  Charcoal,  blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone  black,  not  suitable 
for  use  as  a  pigment,"  as  shown  by  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  page  136. 

Baugh  &  Sons  Co.  is  a  corporation  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
and  is  a  large  manufacturer  of  charcoal  (animal),  bone  char,  or  bone 
black,  not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment,  and  has  a  capital  of  approx- 
imately $270,000  invested  in  the  portion  of  its  plant  devoted  to  such 
manufacture.  The  company  is  not  connected  or  affiliated  in  any 
manner  whatever  with  any  trust  or  combination.  It  is  an  absolutely 
independent  concern,  competing  with  all  manufacturers  of  charcoal, 
blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone  black,  not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment, 
and  other  products,  within  the  territories  which  it  is  practicable 
for  it  to  reach  profitably,  considering  the  location  of  its  plant,  which 
is  at  Philadelphia,  Pa.  The  company  employs  a  large  number  of 
men  at  its  plant,  and  their  average  working  day  is  10  hours  and  the 
wages  paid  skilled  men  are  at  the  rate  of  $12  per  week  and  the  wages 
paid  the  unskilled  workmen  are  at  the  rate  of  $10  per  week.  The 
present  tariff  act  imposes  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  upon 
importations  of  charcoal,  blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone  black, 
not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment,  and  it  is  earnestly  submitted 
that  a  proper  consideration  of  the  interest  of  the  American  workman 
engaged  in  this  industry,  and  of  his  employer,  require  that  this  duty 
be  not  removed  or  decreased.  During  the  past  year,  1912,  the  profits 
of  Baugh  &  Sons  Co.  (after  allowing  a  proper  rental  for  the  premises 
in  which  the  business  is  conducted)  from  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  bone  black,  charcoal,  bone  char,  or  blood  char,  not  suitable  for 
use  as  a  pigment,  amounted  to  but  approximately  6  per  cent  upon 
the  amount  invested  in  the  business — in  other  words,  a  profit 
slightly  more  than  would  be  received  by  any  investor  in  any  good 
bonds,  and  that  slight  increase  was  more  than  earned  by  the  risks 
and  hazards  incident  to  the  conduct  of  the  business. 

The  rate  of  profit  above  mentioned  is  obtained  upon  the  basis  of 
price  of  crude  materials  in  the  United  States  being  $26  per  ton,  the 
minimum  price,  whereas  in  fact  the  price  ranges  and  is  likely  to  range 
higher,  having  already  been  as  high  as  $31  per  ton,  so  that  the  above- 
mentioned  rate  of  profit,  even  under  the  present  protective  policy, 
is  not  a  fixed  profit,  but  is  subject  to  diminution  as  the  prices  of  crude 
materials  advance,  and  indeed  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  prices 
for  crude  materials  which  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  charcoal, 
bone  char,  blood  char,  or  bone  char  not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment 


120  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  10— CHARCOAL. 

are  rapidly  advancing  and  there  are  no  longer  available  to  a  manu- 
facturer of  these  products,  such  as  Baugh  &  Sons  Co.,  any  great  source 
of  supply  of  crude  materials  such  as  a  few  years  ago  existed,  and 
the  result  is  that  a  great  deal  of  crude  material  must  be  imported 
from  other  countries  and  at  greatly  increased  prices,  in  addition  to  the 
freight. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  prices  of  crude  materials  in  foreign  countries 
producing  these  articles  are  much  cheaper  than  in  the  United  States, 
and  under  the  prevailing  low  scales  of  wages  paid  the  foreign  work- 
man (the  skilled  men  receiving  about  $7.50  per  week  and  a  common 
laborer  about  $6  per  week)  it  is  very  apparent  that  the  foreign  manu- 
facturer is  able  to  produce  charcoal,  blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone 
black  not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment,  at  a  much  lower  cost  than  the 
American  maunfacturer,  who  must  pay  more  for  his  crude  material 
and  a  higher  rate  of  wages  to  his  workmen,  to  whom  he  pays  wages, 
as  hereinbefore  mentioned,  to  the  skilled  men  at  the  rate  of  $12  per 
week  and  to  the  common  laborer  $10  per  week.  Right  here  it  is 
clear  that  there  is  a  difference  in  cost  of  production  in  America  and 
foreign  countries,  considering  the  element  of  labor  merely,  of  37£  to 
40  per  cent. 

Therefore,  to  remove  the  present  duty  upon  these  commodities  and 
to  admit  them  free  into  this  country  would  obviously  work  to  the 
advantage  of  the  foreign  manufacturer  alone  and  to  the  great  dis- 
advantage of  the  American  workman  and  his  employer,  making  it 
impossible  for  the  American  citizens,  both  employee  and  employer, 
engaged  in  the  industry,  to  compete  if  the  American  workman  is  to 
receive  his  present  scale  of  wages.  The  only  possible  way  the 
American  manufacturer  could  compete  with  the  foreign  trade  would 
be  to  decrease  greatly  the  wage  scale  of  the  American  workman, 
who,  in  order  to  have  employment,  would  be  obliged  to  accept  this 
decreased  wage  and  consequently  set  for  himself  and  his  family  a 
lower  standard  of  living.  If  the  workman  were  not  willing  to 
accept  the  decreased  wage  and  the  pressing  conditions  which  would 
follow  its  acceptance,  then  the  American  manufacturer  would  be 
compelled  to  cease  operations  and  thus  abandon  the  field  to  the 
foreign  producers  without  competition  from  the  American  manu- 
facturer. 

The  only  recourse  of  the  American  workmen  under  such  conditions 
would  be  to  seek  employment  in  other  directions,  which,  of  course, 
would  tend  to  decrease  the  wage  rate  in  the  other  lines  of  business 
by  reason  of  an  oversupply  of  labor  and  would  demoralize  conditions 
socially  as  well  as  the  charcoal,  blood  char,  bone  char,  or  bone  black 
(not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment)  industries  in  this  country. 

The  geat  damage  that  would  be  suffered  by  the  American  manu- 
facturers by  the  removal  of  the  present  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
will  be  more  clearly  apparent  when  it  is  known,  as  is  the  real  fact 
that  the  profit  upon  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  bone  black,  for 
example,  does  not;  at  the  prevailing  price,  exceed  6  per  cent.  If, 
therefore,  the  foreign  producer  is  able  to  enter  his  goods  into  this 
country  without  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  atleast  it  is  clear 
that  he  would  have  such  an  advantage  as  to  entirely  eliminate  the 
American  manufacturer  and  employee  from  the  industry. 


SCHEDULE   A.  121 

PARAGRAPH  11— BORAX. 

It  is  clear  that  to  place  these  commodities  upon  the  free  list  can 
only  result  in  aiding  the  large  manufacturers  of  charcoal,  blood  char, 
bone  char,  or  bone  black  in  European  countries,  where  the  crude 
materials  and  labor  are  so  much  cheaper  and  lower  than  in  this 
country,  to  the  great  detriment  not  only  of  the  American  manufac- 
turer, but  to  those  workmen  who  are  dependent  upon  the  industry 
here  for  the,  livelihood  of  themselves  and  their  families. 

But  if  upon  a  consideration  of  the  whole  subject  it  be  determined 
to  place  these  articles  upon  the  free  list,  then  not  only  to  be  con- 
sistent, but  in  the  hope  of  preventing  the  absolute  destruction  of 
the  industry,  there  should  be  placed  upon  the  free  list  not  only  crude 
bone  but  bone  ground,  crushed  and  broken  particles  of  afl  kinds 
which  might  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  charcoal,  blood  char, 
bone  char,  or  bone  black  not  suitable  for  use  as  a  pigment.  This 
would  afford  the  American  producer  and  his  workmen  a  very  slight 
or  the  only  chance  to  continue  the  condition  of  their  industry. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

BAUGH  &  SONS  Co., 

B.  H.  BREWSTER,  Vice  President. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January  3,  1918. 

PARAGRAPH  11. 

Borax,  two  cents  per  pound;  borates  of  lime,  soda,  or  other  borate  material 
not  otherwise  provided  for  in  this  section,  two  cents  per  pound. 
For  borax,  Bee  also  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  103. 

BORAX. 

BRIEF  OF  NATIONAL  BORAX  CO.,  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAI.,  IN 
FAVOR  OF  TARIFF  ON  BORAX,  BORACIC  ACID,  AND  BORATE 
OF  LIME. 

The  borax  produced  by  the  mines  of  the  company  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent  are  situate  in  the  northeastern  portion  of  Ventura 
County,  a  very  sparsely  populated  section  and  practically  a  desert 
country. 

The  mines  are  a  long  distance  away  from  railroad  transportation, 
something  like  70  miles,  and  we  have  been  compelled  to  build  and 
maintain  wagon  roads  to  haul  our  products  and  supplies  this  long  dis- 
tance at  a  very  high  expense. 

Our  mine  is  one  of  the  four  existing  borate  mines  hi  this  country, 
and  all  are  more  or  less  laboring  under  these  same  disadvantages, 
besides  having  to  pay  the  highest  rate  of  wages  to  miners  and  other 
high  costs  for  supplies. 

The  ore  produced  by  these  mines  is  principally  colemanite,  a  variety 
of  borate  of  lime,  containing  a  very  large  percentage  of  waste  matter, 
and  has  to  be  refined  before  it  becomes  an  article  of  commerce. 

The  output  of  our  mines  will  average  1,000  tons  a  month  at  an 
approximate  value  of  $25  per  ton  for  the  crude  ore  at  the  mine. 

Over  100  people  are  more  or  less  directly  interested  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  operations  of  our  mines,  and  our  pay  roll,  including  sup- 
plies, exceeds  the  amount  of  $10,000  per  month. 


122  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  11— BOBAX. 

Any  reduction  of  the  present  tariff  would  only  force  us  to  discon- 
tinue our  operations  ana  would  not  only  work  a  very  great  hardship 
upon  our  laborers  and  others  depending  upon  them,  but  also  upon  our 
stockholders,  of  which  there  are  200. 

The  present  price  of  the  refined  commercial  product,  borax,  and 
also  all  other  products  derived  from  the  mineral  we  mine  (colemanite, 
borate  of  lime)  is  lower  than  it  has  ever  been  known  before. 

The  reduction  of  tariff  would  only  open  the  American  markets  to 
the  borate  of  lime  produced  in  South  America,  where  they  have  very 
cheap  labor,  and  would  close  the  operations  of  all  of  the  American 
mines,  without  giving  the  American  consumer  any  compensating 
benefits. 

NATIONAL  BOBAX  Co., 
By  MAX  P.  FRIES, 
President  and  General  Manager. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL. 

CHAMBER  OF    MINES    AND    OIL,    LOS  ANGELES,   CAL.,   URGES 
RETENTION  OF  DUTY  ON  BORAX. 

CHAMBER  OF  MINES  AND  OIL, 

Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  January  9,  1913. 
Mr.  DANIEL  C.  ROPER, 

Clerk  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  We  beg  to  confirm  our  telegram  to  you  to-day,  quoting 
resolutions  passed  by  our  board  of  directors,  urging  that  no  action 
be  taken  by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  toward  placing  borax 
or  borate  products  on  the  tariff  free  list. 

We  inclose  herewith  copy  of  the  resolution,  as  telegraphed  to  you; 
also  a  brief  of  facts  on  the  borax  industry  of  this  State,  as  prepared  by 
our  committee. 

We  will  appreciate  it  if  you  will  bring  this  resolution  and  brief  to 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  and  assure  you  of  our  appreciation  in 
advance. 

Very  truly,  yours,  CHAMBER  OF  MINES  AND  OIL, 

G.  M.  SWINDELL,  Secretary. 

[Night  letter.] 

Los  ANGELES,  CAL.,  January  8,  1913. 
DANIEL  C.  ROPER, 

Clerk  Committee  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Please  bring  to  attention  committee  following  resolution  passed  to-day  by  our  board 
of  directors: 

AYhereas  the  borax-mining  industry  in  California  has  shown  a  small  but  steady  increase 
after  40  years  of  development  work  notwithstanding  the  limited  market;  and 

Whereas  with  the  increase  in  production  and  transportation  facilities  there  has  been 
an  enormous  decrease  in  the  price  of  borate  products  to  the  consumer;  and 

"Whereas  any  reduction  in  the  existing  tariff  will  eliminate  this  industry  in  California, 
throw  open  the  markets  of  the  United  States  to  foreign  mines,  benefit  foreign  labor 
at  the  expense  of  American  labor,  practically  destroy  the  work  of  those  who  have 
built  up  the  industry,  and  cause  great  loss  in  capital  now  invested  in  California: 
Now,  therefore,  be  it 


SCHEDULE   A.  123 

PARAGRAPH  11— BORAX. 

Resolved  by  the  Chamber  of  Mines  and  Oil  of  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  That  we  do  most  earn- 
estly protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  existing  tariff  on  borax  and  borate  products, 
and  do  urge  our  Senators  and  Congressmen  to  devote  their  best  efforts  to  the  support 
of  this  resolution  in  the  proper  committees  and  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives. 

Russ  AVERT,  President. 

JANUARY  9,   1913. 

RESOLUTIONS  PASSED  BY  THE  BOARD  OP  DIRECTORS,  CHAMBER  OP  MINES  AND  OIL  OF 
LOS  ANGELES,  CAL.,  PROTESTING  AGAINST  REDUCTION  IN  EXISTING  TARIFF  ON  BORAX 
AND  BORATE  PRODUCTS. 

Whereas  the  borax  mining  industry  in  California  has  shown  a  small  but  steady 
increase  after  40  years  of  development  work,  notwithstanding  the  limited  market; 
and 

Whereas  with  the  increase  in  production  and  transportation  facilities  there  has 
been  an  enormous  decrease  in  the  price  of  borate  products  to  the  consumer;  and 

Whereas  any  reduction  in  the  existing  tariff  will  eliminate  this  industry  in  Cali- 
fornia, throw  open  the  markets  of  the  United  States  to  foreign  mines,  benefit  foreign 
labor  at  the  expense  of  American  labor,  practically  destroy  the  work  of  those  who 
have  built  up  the  industry,  and  cause  great  loss  of  capital  now  invested  in  California: 
Now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Chamber  of  Mines  and  Oil  of  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  That  we  do  most 
earnestly  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  existing  tariff  on  borax  and  borate 
products,  and  do  urge  our  Senators  and  Congressmen  to  devote  their  best  efforts  to  the 
support  of  this  resolution  in  the  proper  committees  and  on  the  floors  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives. 

Certified  as  a  true  and  correct  copy. 

Russ  AVERY,  President. 
G.  M.  SWINDELL,  Secretary. 

JANUARY  9,  1913. 
BRIEF  OF  FACTS  IN  RE  THE  BORAX  MINING  INDUSTRY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  entire  production  of  borax  in  the  United  States  is  vir- 
tually derived  from  four  producing  mines  in  this  State,  the  industry  may  be  defined 
as  essentially  Californian.  The  crude  ore  now  being  mined  is  principally  colemanite, 
a  borate  of  lime,  and  its  content  of  anhydrous  boric  acid  varies  considerably,  owing  to 
the  presence  of  impurities  in  the  ore.  The  total  production  for  the  present  year,  from 
present  indications,  will  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  4,100  tons  monthly,  with  an  approxi- 
mate valuation  at  the  mine  of  $29  per  ten. 

The  present  wholesale  price  of  refined  commercial  borax,  a  chemical  combination 
of  boric  acid  and  soda,  is  $3.75  per  100  pounds.  Incidentally,  the  wholesale  price 
in  the  United  States  is  as  cheap  as  in  Europe. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  industry  provides  employment  for  about  1,000  men;  that 
salaries  and  wages  will  approximate  $2,000  to  $3,500  daily;  that  the  average  monthly 
purchase  of  supplies,  very  conservatively  estimated  and  excluding  machinery  and 
equipment,  will  reach  $50,000.  Los  Angeles,  being  the  nearest  large  center  to  the 
mines,  secures  the  bulk  of  this  business.  It  is,  therefore,  apparent  that  the  industry  ia 
a  small  one,  comparatively,  and  one  which  would  seem  to  warrant  protection  and 
encouragement. 

Any  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  will,  we  feel  sufficiently  confident,  eliminate 
borax  mining  in  the  United  States,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  will  not  tend  to  reduce 
prices  to  the  consumer.  Such  tariff  reduction  will  open  the  United  States  market  to 
foreign  mines  in  South  America,  Asia,  and  Europe.  It  would  also  help  foreign  labor, 
throw  out  of  employment  in  the  United  States  men  who  have  specialized  in  this 
industry  and  helped  build  it  up  from  a  gross  production  in  1895  of  5,959  short  tons  to 
53,330  tons  in  1911.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  with  the  growth  of  the  borax  mining 
industry  there  has  been  an  immense  reduction  in  the  value  of  the  crude  ore.  Thus 
in  1895  a  production  of  5,959  tons  netted  the  miners  $595,900,  or  $100  per  ton;  while 
the  production  of  53,330  tons  in  1911  brought  them  but  $1,569,151,  or  about  $29  per  ton. 
Statistics  to  be  obtained  from  the  Federal  authorities  will  also  show  that  the  price  of 
borax  and  boric  acid  to  the  consumers  has  been  steadily  reduced  during  the  period 
mentioned. 


124  TABIFF   HEAB1NGS. 

PARAGRAPH  11     BORAX. 

Even  with  the  nominal  protection  afforded  by  the  present  tariff  foreign  competitor* 
found  it  possible  to  import  in  1911  for  consumption  in  the  United  States  borax  and 
berates,  including  boric  acid,  with  a  valuation  of  about  $24,000. 

The  facts  furnished  above  will  prove  the  limited  market  for  borate  products  in  the 
United  States,  and  a  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  will  merely  mean  an  increased 
profit  for  the  foreign  producer,  as  he  could  mine  and  ship  the  refined  product  to  the 
United  States  at  a  slightly  lower  cost  than  at  present,  while  such  a  reduction  in  tariff 
would  effectually  eliminate  a  minor  industry  in  this  State,  the  development  of  which 
has  gradually  lessened  the  cost  of  a  household  necessity  year  by  year,  and  not  followed 
the  trend  of  other  protected  industries  to  the  detriment  of  the  general  public. 

We  urge  all  Senators  and  Congressmen  receiving  this  brief  to  give  the  matter  their 
most  earnest  consideration,  and  we  sincerely  trust  that  the  facts  presented  may  con- 
vince them  of  the  necessity  for  retaining  the  existing  small  tariff  on  borax  and  borate 
products. 
Respectfully  presented. 

CHAMBER  OP  MINES  AND  OIL, 
HENRY  BLUMENBERQ,  Jr., 
THOS.  THORKILDSEN, 
C.  E.  CALM, 

Committee. 
Approved. 

Russ  AVERT,  President. 
G.  M.  SWINDELL,  Secretary. 

BRIEF    IN   FAVOR   OF   THE    PROTECTIVE    TARIFF  ON   BORAX, 
BORIC  ACID,  AND  BORATE  OF  LIME. 

VENTURA,  CAL.,  January  7,  1913. 

The  entire  production  of  borax  in  the  United  States  is  virtually 
derived  from  lour  producing  mines  located  in  this  State  in  outlying 
and  desert  country.  Our  mine  is  one  of  the  four  and  is  under  heavy 
expense  for  hauling  the  ore  75  miles  by  wagon  and  very  high  rate  for 
wages  to  miners  and  for  supplies. 

Our  crude  ore  is  principally  colemanite,  a  variety  of  borate  of  lime, 
having  a  large  percentage  of  impurities,  which  necessitates  refining 

The  total  yearly  production  of  our  mine  is  6,000  tons,  at  an  approxi- 
mate valuation  at  the  mine  of  $25  per  ton  for  the  crude  ore. 

We  employ  about  an  average  of  65  men,  whose  wage  is  approxi- 
mately $200  per  day.  Any  reduction  of  the  present  tariff  will  force 
us  to  discontinue  operations  and  will  not  only  work  a  hardship  upon 
our  stockholders,  but  also  upon  the  laborers  and  others  depending 
upon  the  operation  of  this  mine. 

The  present  market  price  of  the  refined  commercial  product  (borax) 
is  lower  than  has  ever  been  known  before  and  would  not  be  reduced 
even  with  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  and  we  can  not  see  that  it  will  be 
of  any  advantage  either  to  the  American  consumer  or  manufacturer. 

HENRY  M.  RUSSELL, 
President  Russell  Borate  Mining  Co. 


SCHEDULE   A.  125 

PARAGRAPH  11— BORAX. 
BRIEF  OF  THE  PACIFIC   COAST   BOEAX  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

PACIFIC  COAST  BORAX  Co., 

New  York,  January  28,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  G. 

DEAR  SIR:  Referring  to  the  present  law: 
Paragraph  1.  Boracic  acid,  present  duty  3  cents  per  pound. 
Paragraph  11.  Borax,  present  duty  2  cents  per  pound;  borates  of 
lime,  soda,  or  other  borate  material  not  otherwise  provided  for  in 
this  section,  present  duty  2  cents  per  pound. 

We  beg  to  protest  against  any  change  in  the  above  duties,  for  the 
following  reasons: 

BORATES  OF  LIME  OR  SODA  OR  OTHER  BORATE  MATERIAL  NOT  OTHER- 
WISE PROVIDED  FOR. 

The  mineral  (borate  of  lime)  from  which  borax  and  boracic  acid 
are  manufactured  is  found  in  this  country  in  commercial  quantities 
chiefly  in  the  western  portion  of  the  United  States,  and  particularly 
in  the  States  of  California  and  Nevada,  where  it  is  confined  to  a  lim- 
ited area  of  desert  country  known  as  the  Death  Valley  region.  From 
this  region  there  is  mined  annually  approximately  50,000  tons  of 
crude  borate  material.  The  production  of  this  material  has  neces- 
sitated extensive  developments  for  many  years,  and  an  industry  of 
considerable  magnitude  has  grown  up  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
duction of  borate  of  lime  in  Death  Valley. 

In  the  past  years  of  growth  in  the  borax  business  in  America,  it 
has  been  necessary  to  build  railroads  and  wagon  roads,  and  to  establish 
water  stations  through  the  development  of  springs,  and  generally 
to  civilize  arid  wastes  of  drifting  sand.  This  development  work  has 
so  opened  up  the  thousands  of  square  miles  of  land  in  Death  Valley 
and  other  desert  sections  of  California  and  Nevada  that  it  is  now 
possible  to  reach,  with  safety,  most  of  the  ulterior  points  on  the 
desert,  and  prospectors  as  well  as  others  are  frequently  seen  trav- 
eling with  safety  from  place  to  place  on  the  desert,  depending  largely 
for  food  and  water  upon  the  stations  established  by  the  borax  people, 
until  death  from  want  of  water  is  much  less  frequent  than  formerly, 
and  through  prospecting  thus  made  possible,  much  land  containing 
other  valuable  minerals  has  been  found  which  heretofore  was  entirely 
unknown.  The  possibility  in  potash  alone  is  an  example  of  what 
has  been  accomplished  through  civilization  by  the  borax  people, 
who  alone  have  done  the  pioneer  development  work  hi  the  American 
deserts  and  converted  them,  and  particularly  the  Death  VaUey,  as 
it  is  generally  known  to-day,  into  an  oasis  of  health  and  remunerative 
employment  for  many  contented  workmen  and  prospectors. 

During  the  past  10  years,  extensive  plants  have  been  constructed 
in  order  that  the  borate  material  may  be  economically  produced, 
assorted,  calcined,  and  shipped.  A  great  many  men  are  constantly 
employed  in  this  industry.  A  railroad  of  127  miles  in  length  has 
been  built  to  carry  the  crude  material  from  one  of  the  fields  of  pro- 


126  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  11— BORAX. 

duction  to  a  point  of  connection  with  a  transcontinental  railway 
line.  The  industry  which,  through  years  of  development,  effort,  and 
economic  management,  has  thus  grown  and  developed  in  the  arid 
region  of  Death  Valley,  until  at  present  there  is  expended  annually 
for  labor  and  supplies  approximately  $750,000. 

In  order  to  produce  commercial  borax  and  boric  acid  from  the 
crude  material  extracted  from  the  Death  Valley  fields,  it  is  necessary 
to  combine  the  borate  ingredients  existent  in  the  material  with  a 
certain  percentage  of  soda.  Soda  of  proper  quality  does  not  exist 
in  that  region.  It  therefore  becomes  necessary  to  either  ship  the 
crude  material  to  some  point  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  where  it  may 
be  combined  with  soda,  or  to  ship  soda  from  the  point  of  its  produc- 
tion in  the  Eastern  States  to  some  point  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and 
there  to  combine  it  with  the  borate  material. 

Since  the  territory  of  the  greatest  distribution  for  the  refined  prod- 
uct is  existent  upon  the  Atlantic  coast  and  east  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  it  has  been  determined  by  experience  that  it  is  necessary  to 
ship  the  crude  ore  to  some  point  in  the  East  for  its  manufacture  into 
refined  borax  and  boric  acid,  and  from  that  point  distributed  to  the 
consumers.  The  vast  production  and  transportation  of  raw  mate- 
rial from  the  fields  in  the  West  to  eastern  points  of  manufacture 
necessitates  a  considerable  expenditure.  Approximately  25,000  tons 
of  marketable  borate  ore  are  shipped  from  the  50,000  tons  mined 
from  these  fields  each  year  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard  for  refining.  Of 
such  crude  material  so  shipped  approximately  60  per  cent  consists  of 
lime,  which  has  no  commercial  value.  Thus  it  becomes  necessary 
to  transport  across  the  continent  15,000  tons  of  waste  material  in 
order  that  the  essential  ingredients  of  the  crude  ore  may  be  secured. 
Such  trnsportation  necessitates  the  payment  of  large  sums  for  freight 
and  adds  greatly  to  the  commercial  and  economic  value  of  the 
borax  industry,  as  the  same  has  grown  up  in  this  country. 

With  the  present  import  dut}r  existing,  the  American  borax  indus- 
try is  enabled  to  compete  successfully  in  the  American  market  with 
foreign  producers  of  the  same  material.  The  producers  of  borate 
material  in  the  western  United  States  have  their  strongest  competi- 
tors in  the  fields  of  borate  ore  existent  upon  the  eastern  and  western 
coasts  of  South  America.  In  the  Argentine  Republic,  Chile,  and 
Peru  borate  of  lime  superior  in  quality  to  the  California  mineral 
can  be  produced  from  extensive  fields  at  a  low  cost  with  "peon" 
labor,  which  receives  a  daily  wage  of  from  25  to  50  cents.  The 
product  of  these  fields  can  be  cheaply  transported  by  ship  to  American 
ports,  and  the  total  expenditure  for  production  ana  delivery  of 
South  American  borate  material  to  points  of  manufacture  and  dis- 
tribution within  this  country  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  very  cheap 
when  compared  with  the  outlay  necessary  to  produce  the  material 
in  the  Death  Valley  region  and  transport  the  same  to  the  Atlantic 
coast,  there  to  be  refined  and  manufactured  into  the  commercial 
product.  Such  South  American  competition  becomes  doubly  dan- 
gerous to  the  borax  industry  of  this  country  because  of  the  fact 
that  upon  the  completion  of  the  Panama  Canal  the  South  American 
producer,  chiefly  in  Chile  and  Peru,  can  extract,  ship,  and  deliver 
crude  borate  material  to  New  York  or  other  Atlantic  seaboard  ports 


SCHEDULE  A.  127 

PARAGRAPH  11— BORAX. 

at  a  less  cost  than  the  cost  of  mining  in  the  Death  Valley  fields 
plus  the  cost  of  transportation  to  the  eastern  seaboard  points. 

If  the  import  duty  is  removed  from  borate,  as  was  proposed  in 
House  bill  20182  and  passed  by  the  House,  the  industry  which  has 
been  built  up  in  this  country,  together  with  its  incidental  and  attend- 
ant activities  and  benefits,  would  cease.  A  great  amount  of  valuable 
property  would  be  forced  to  lie  dormant  and  to  revert  to  its  original 
condition  of  an  arid,  nonproductive  desert  waste  of  drifting  sand. 
The  only  direct  result  would  be  to  wreck  an  American  industry  and 
take  from  the  channels  of  trade  and  commerce  the  benefits  which  are 
now  directly  derived  from  such  industry  in  a  monetary  and  commer- 
cial sense.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  import  duty  was  maintained 
upon  borate  of  lime,  borax,  and  boracic  acid,  the  present  extensive 
workings  of  Death  Valley  will  continue  their  operations  and  hun- 
dreds of  persons  who  are  now  dependent  for  support  upon  such 
industry  and  its  incidental  activities  would  continue  in  their  present 
satisfied  and  prosperous  condition,  and  the  other  mineral  resources 
of  the  territory  which  have  been  developed  hi  the  past  will  continue 
to  be  prospected  and  developed  in  the  future. 

The  duties  under  the  present  law  are  a  reduction  of  60  per  cent 
from  what  they  were  under  the  Dingley  law,  and  under  these  condi- 
tions only  mines  that  are  fairly  well  situated  from  a  transportation 
standpoint  are  able  to  operate.  Many  properties  that  were  formerly 
operated  have  been  compelled  to  discontinue  operations.  We  may 
mention  some  of  these  properties :  In  Oregon,  the  Rose  Valley  Borax 
Co.;  in  Nevada,  the  Arnedee  Borax  Co.,  the  Rhodes-Marsh  Borax 
Co.,  Teels-Marsh  Borax  Co.;  the  borate  properties  at  Columbus, 
Nev.,  the  Reno  Borax  Co.,  in  California,  the  San  Bernardino  Borax 
Co.  (where  the  recent  potash  discoveries  were  made),  and  the  mine 
of  the  Sterling  Borax  Co.  in  Ventura  County.  None  of  these  prop- 
erties can  be  profitably  worked  under  the  present  conditions.  It  is 
therefore  imperative  that  instead  of  putting  borate  material  on  the 
free  list  the  present  duty  should  be  maintained  and  that  the  duties 
on  refined  borax  and  boracic  acid  also  should  not  be  reduced. 

The  price  of  borax  has  decreased  over  90  per  cent  since  1870,  when 
it  was  35  cents  per  pound,  to  3|  cents  per  pound  in  1912.  The  annual 
consumption  has  increased  from  approximately  300  tons  in  1870  to 
over  20,000  tons  in  1912.  The  duty  has  been  reduced  60  per  cent 
from  what  it  was  under  the  Dingley  bill,  5  cents  per  pound,  to  2 
cents  per  pound  under  the  present  law.  To  remove  the  duty  would 
close  the  western  mines. 

The  present  improvements  and  desert  developments,  including 
127  miles  of  broad-gauge  railroad,  would,  however,  suffer,  which  is 
much  to  be  regretted,  for  if  the  borate  shipments  were  discontinued 
the  railroad  would  have  to  be  abandoned,  as  the  other  business 
would  not  support  the  operations  of  the  road,  and  all  development 
in  that  region  of  the  Pacific  coast  would  consequently  cease. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

PACIFIC  COAST  BOB  AX  Co., 
C.  K.  FABRISIDE, 

Eastern  Manager. 


128  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  Id— CAMPHOR. 

PAEAQEAPH  12. 

Camphor,  refined,  and  synthetic  camphor,  six  cents  per  pound. 

CAMPHOR. 

AMERICAN  CAMPHOR  REFINING  CO.,  BOSTON,  MASS.,  URGES 
RETENTION  OF  DUTY  ON  CAMPHOR. 

BOSTON,  January  6, 1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  bring  to  your  attention  the  importance  to  the 
American  refiner  of  camphor  that  there  should  be  no  change  hi  the 
existing  rate  of  duty  under  the  present  tariff. 

Crude  camphor  is  a  monopoly  of  the  Imperial  Japanese  Govern- 
ment and  is  admitted  free  of  duty. 

Refined  camphor  is  manufactured  by  the  American  refiner  from 
the  crude  camphor  imported  from  Japan  and  Formosa. 

Notwithstanding  a  duty  of  6  cents  per  pound  on  refined  camphor, 
the  imports  of  Japanese  refined  camphor  are  constantly  increasing,  as 
will  be  seen  by  the  following  statement: 

Imports  Japanese  refined  camphor. 

Pounds. 

1890 87 

1896 153, 912 

1900 109, 971 

1905 214,  049 

1909 430,  524 

1910 492,  583 

At  the  present  time  Japanese  refined  camphor  is  selling  at  from  1 
to  2  cents  per  pound  less  than  the  home  product,  notwithstanding  the 
duty  of  6  cents  per  pound. 

In  consequence  of  the  fact  that  labor  in  Japan  is  less  than  one- 
fourth  of  the  amount  paid  in  the  United  States  for  similar  labor,  and 
as  refiners  here  are  not  favored  as  are  the  refiners  in  Japan,  it  will 
readily  be  seen  that  if  the  duty  on  the  refined  product  is  decreased, 
or  if  a  duty  is  placed  on  crude  camphor  without  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  duty  of  refined  camphor,  the  industry  in  the  United 
States  must  be  discontinued. 

We  shall  be  pleased  to  furnish  any  additional  information  or  to 
answer  any  inquiries. 

Respectfully,  AMERICAN  CAMPHOR  REFINING  Co., 

CHAS.  A.  WEST,  President. 

BAKER  &  BRO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  PROTEST  AGAINST  CHANGE 
OF  DUTY  ON  CAMPHOR. 

NEW  YORK,  January  8,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  reply  to  your  notice  of  tariff  hearings,  dated  De- 
cember 11,  1912,  we  oeg  to  submit  the  following  : 


SCHEDULE  A.  129 

PARAGRAPH  12— CAMPHOR. 

"Paragraph  No.  12.  Refined  camphor,  present  duty,  6  cents  per 
pound." 

We  beg  to  enter  our  protest  against  any  changes  in  the  present 
tariff  reducing  the  tax  on  refined  camphor  from  6  cents  per  pound 
and  placing  a  duty  on  the  crude  material,  which  is  now  on  the  free 
list. 

Should  the  changes  in  H.  R.  20182  become  effective,  it  will  be  the 
equivalent  of  reducing  the  present  duty  on  refined  and  synthetic  cam- 
phor 66 §  per  cent. 

The  crude  supply  of  the  world  is  controlled  by  the  Japanese  Im- 
perial Government  monopoly. 

Due  to  the  advantages  enjoyed  by  the  Japanese  refiners  of  location 
and  cheap-labor  conditions,  even  under  the  present  duty  imports 
of  refined  camphor  have  increased  as  follows  : 

Pounds. 

1890 87 

1896 153,912 

1900 109,791 

1905 214,049 

1909 430,524 

1910 492,583 

We  have  been  refiners  of  camphor  for  about  40  years  and  desire 
to  remain  in  the  business,  but  any  radical  changes  in  the  present  tariff 
schedules  will  put  the  business  in  the  hands  of  foreign  refiners. 
We  remain,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

H.  J.  BAKER  &  BRO. 

PFIZER  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  REQUESTS  THAT  PRESENT 
DUTY  ON  CAMPHOR  BE  MAINTAINED. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Pursuant  to  your  notice  of  tariff  hearings,  1913,  dated 
December  11,  1912,  we  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

The  paragraphs  mentioned  below  refer  to  the  present  tariff  law. 

Paragraph  12.  Camphor,  refined,  and  synthetic  camphor. — Present 
rate,  6  cents  per  pound. 

It  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  refined  camphor  is  constantly 
being  imported  into  the  United  States  in  increasing  quantities  that 
the  refiners  in  the  United  States  are  not  enabled  to  compete  success- 
fully with  the  foreign  refiners,  especially  those  of  Japan,  where  all 
the  costs  of  refining  camphor  are  vastly  lower  than  those  of  our 
own  country.  The  imports  of  refined  camphor  into  the  United 
States  in  1900  were  109,971  pounds,  and  have  been  constantly 
increasing  since  then,  until  in  1911  the  imports  were  492,111  pounds. 

We  submit,  therefore,  that  if  this  industry  is  to  be  continued  in 
the  United  States  the  present  duty  should  be  maintained,  if  not 
increased. 

Paragraph  527.  Camphor,  crude,  natural. — On  the  free  list  of  the 
present  tariff. 

78959°— VOL  1 


130  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  12— CAMPHOR. 

This  is  the  raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of  refined  camphor. 
Supplies  of  the  world  of  crude  natural  camphor  are  now  practically 
under  the  control  of  a  monopoly  established  by  the  Imperial  Japa- 
nese Government.  Crude  natural  camphor  is  not  only  the  raw 
material  for  refined  camphor,  but  also  for  other  important  products 
manufactured  in  the  United  States. 

We  submit  that  this  article  should  be  retained  upon  the  free  list. 
If,  however,  for  reasons  of  revenue  it  is  deemed  wise  to  place  a  tariff 
upon  this  material,  then  we  suggest  that  a  proportionate  increase 
should  be  made  in  the  tariff  for  refined,  bearing  in  mind  that  100 
pounds  of  crude  camphor  represents  in  the  finished  refined  product 
85  to  87  pounds. 

Respectfully,  yours,  CHARLES  PFIZER  &  Co.  (!NC.), 

FRANKLIN  BLACK,  Secretary. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6,  1913. 

STATEMENT  BY  SOBERING  &  GLATZ,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  30,  1913. 
The  honorable  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  G. 

SIRS:  We  beg  leave  to  present  to  your  committee  for  considera- 
tion the  following  data  relating  to  the  chemical  schedule  of  the  tariff 
revision: 

1.  Crude  synthetic  camphor  from  oil  of  turpentine. — The  tariff  act  of 
1909  provides  that  natural  crude  camphor  enters  the  United  States 
free  of  duty,  excluding,  however,  absolutely  a  crude  synthetic  cam- 
phor,  because  the  impurities  of  the  latter  are  not  identical  with 
those  of  natural  camphor.     Importers  of  crude  synthetic  camphor 
are  required,  therefore,  to  enter  the  product  under  the  paragraph 
which  provides  that   "Refined   or  synthetic   camphor  shall  pay  a 
duty  of  6  cents  per  pound."     Competition  with  the  natural  product 
is  made  impossible,  therefore,  although  it  is  well  known  that  neither 
the  natural  nor  the  synthetic  crude  camphor  can  be  used  for  the 
production  of  a  satisfactory  colorless  grade  of  celluloid. 

We  recommend  that  this  paragraph  be  changed  to  read:  "Refined 
natural  or  synthetic  camphor  shall  pay  a  duty  of  6  cents  per  pound" 
and  that  paragraph  527  dealing  with  natural  crude  camphor  be 
supplemented  to  include  also  the  synthetic  crude  camphor. 

2.  Chemical  compounds  and  salts  containing  alcohol,  or  in  the  prep- 
aration of  which  alcohol  is  used. — Paragraph  3  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909 
provided  that  chemical  compounds  and  salts  containing  alcohol,  or 
in  the  preparation  of  winch  alcohol  is  used,  shall  pay  a  duty  of  55 
cents  per  pound,  but  not  less  than  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  n.  s.  p.  f. 

We  recommend  that  this  paragraph  be  changed  to  exclude  chem- 
ical preparations  in  the  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used  which 
do  not  contain  alcohol,  however,  and  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  be 
provided  therefor  not  higher  than  that  assessed  on  medicinal  prep- 
arations. The  present  rate  of  duty  is  absolutely  unjust,  because  it 
exceeds  in  many  instances  many  times  the  value  of  the  merchandise. 
Chloral  hydrate,  for  instance,  entering  under  this  paragraph,  has  a 


SCHEDULE  A.  131 

PARAGRAPH  13— CHALK. 

market  value  of  about  15  cents  per  pound  and  the  duty  thereon  is 
55  cents  per  pound. 

3.  Tannic  acid  "  Tannin." — Tannin  is  specially  provided  for  under 
paragraph  1  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909  to  pay  duty  at  the  rate  of  35 
cents  per  pound. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  its  market  value  rarely  exceeds  35  cents, 
we  recommend  that  the  duty  be  modified  to  an  ad  valorem  rate  on 
the  basis  of  chemical  compounds  or  chemical  acids,  n.  s.  p.  f. 
Respectfully, 

SCHERING  &  GLATZ. 

PARAGEAPH  13. 

Chalk,  when  ground,  bolted,  precipitated  naturally  or  artificially,  or  other- 
wise prepared,  whether  in  the  form  of  cubes,  blocks,  sticks  or  disks,  or 
otherwise,  including  tailors',  billiard,  red,  or  French  chalk,  one  cent  per 
pound;  manufactures  of  chalk  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
See  M.  Ewing  Fox  &  Co.,  page  324. 

CHALK. 

STATEMENT   OF  FREDERICK  N.  TIRRELL,  OF   STICKNEY, 
TIRRELL  &  CO.,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

Mr.  TERRELL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention — = — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  industrv  do  vou  speak  for? 

Mr.  TIRRELL.  Stickney,  Tirrell  &  Co.;  Paris  white,  coming  under 
two  different  articles  in  the  schedule. 

First,  I  will  take  chalk.  Please  refer  to  the  present  tariff  under 
the  free  list,  page  71,  section  531,  and  page  2,  section  13.  Please 
note  that  H.  K.  20182,  page  21,  section  84,  continues  chalk  on  the 
free  list,  but  the  wording  of  section  17,  page  4,  would  impose  a  duty 
on  "Chalk,  natural,"  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Eliminate  the 
word  "natural"  in  H.  R.  20182  and,  as  relates  to  chalk,  it  is  con- 
sistent. There  are  no  deposits  of  chalk  on  this  continent  from  which 
the  American  manufacturer  can  obtain  his  supply  of  raw  material, 
so  that  it  must  be  imported  from  Europe — mostly  from  England 
and  France — paying  the  ocean  freights  on  same.  The  advantage 
to  the  foreign  manufacturer  under  these  conditions  is  obvious,  as 
he  has  his  whiting  factory  adjoining  the  chalk  quarry.  It  is  unques- 
tionably most  beneficial  to  all  concerned  in  this  country  that  chalk — 
"crude  or  natural  chalk" — shall  be  continued  on  the  free  list;  we 
understand  this  to  be  your  intention.  In  this  section — 17 — please 
note  that  chalk,  ground  or  bolted,  becomes  by  this  process  of  manu- 
facture whiting,  and  should  carry  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  whiting 
and  Paris  white.  We  would  suggest,  to  avoid  confusion,  that  the 
folio  whig  be  stricken  out  of  section  17,  page  4,  line  24,  viz:  "Natural 
ground  or  bolted,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem."  Also  permit  us  to 
call  your  attention  to  H.  R.  20182,  page  20,  section  74,  line  14, 
"French  chalk,  powdered,  washed,  or  pulverized."  By  this  process 
it  becomes  whiting  and  should  carry  the  same  duty  as  whiting  and 
Paris  white.  Chalk — "crude,  natural" — whether  English  or  French, 


132  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  13— CHALK. 

reduced  to  powdered  form  by  any  process  of  manipulation,  becomes 
whiting  and  Paris  white. 

"Whiting"  and  "Paris  white"  are  commercial  terms  and  refer  to 
merchandise  produced  principally  from  crude  or  natural  chalk.  A 
ton  of  chalk  will  not  make  a  ton  of  whiting  or  Paris  white.  It  re- 
quires from  2,700  to  2,800  pounds  of  the  crude  material  to  make 
2,000  pounds  of  whiting  or  Paris  white.  The  freight  and  handling 
charges  on  this  700  to  800  pounds  per  ton  of  waste  reduces  by  so 
much  the  duty  protection.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  any  demand 
or  request  from  the  American  consumer  for  a  reduction  in  the  present 
duty  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound.  Please  refer  to  the  present 
tariff,  page  5,  section  54.  Also  piease  refer  to  H.  R.  20182,  page  18, 
section  65,  proposing  reduction  to  one-tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound. 
The  Government  has  imposed  a  duty  on  whiting  and  Paris  white 
since  1816,  and  under  any  and  all  conditions  never  less  than  the 
present  duty,  and  during  most  of  this  period  the  duty  has  ranged 
from  one-half  to  1  cent  per  pound,  except  from  July,  1846,  to  July, 
1862,  when  the  "bars  were  let  down,"  resulting  in  wide  and  violent 
fluctuations  in  prices,  caused  by  short  or  oversupply  in  importations 
and  ruling  rates  in  ocean  freights.  "Corners"  were  of  frequent 
occurrence  and  the  very  conditions  which  dealers  and  consumers 
seek  to  avoid  were  always  present,  creating  an  element  of  uncertainty. 
During  this  period  the  industry  languished  in  this  country.  The 
universal  sentiment  expressed  by  dealers  and  consumers  is  that 
prices  under  the  present  rate  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  are 
satisfactory  and  that  what  is  most  desired  is  stability  and  uniformity 
of  price — which  is  secured  to  them  by  competition  among  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturers — and  the  avoidance  of  fluctuations  certain  to  pre- 
vail under  a  tariff  that  would  eliminate  the  American  manufacturer. 
The  present  tariff  is  not  prohibitive,  although  very  little  whiting  and 
Paris  white  is  imported.  This  is  because  of  the  low  rate  of  prices  of 
the  American  manufacturer.  There  is  no  trust  or  combination  in 
the  business.  There  have  been  no  fortunes  made  by  the  whiting 
manufacturers.  Competition  among  American  manufacturers  is, 
and  always  has  been,  intense.  The  margin  of  profit  to  the  American 
manufacturer  is  so  small  that  freight  rates  in  this  country  largely 
determine  the  market  in  which  the  consumer  places  his  orders. 

Consumption  of  whiting  and  Paris  white  in  this  country,  based  on 
the  statistics  of  1911,  is  about  100,000  tons  yearly.  If  the  entire 
amount  were  imported  under  the  proposed  tariff  rate,  the  Govern- 
ment would  receive  about  $200,000  in  duties  and  the  loss  to  labor  in 
this  country  would  be  about  $500,000  to  8600,000  per  annum. 

Labor  is  all  able-bodied  men  and  the  scale  of  wages  hi  this  country 
ranges  from  SI. 65  to  S3  per  day,  the  same  being  somewhat  over  50 
per  cent  higher  than  for  similar  labor  in  Europe. 

The  cost  of  chalk  and  labor  to  the  European  manufacturer  is  from 
S4.50  to  So. 50  per  ton  less  than  to  the  American  manufacturer,  so  that 
the  present  rule  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  duty  on  whiting 
and  Paris  white  is  protecting  the  American  laborer  only  and  does  not 
contribute  to  the  American  whiting  manufacturer's  margin  of  profit. 
It  Li  by  superior  methods  of  manufacturing  we  are  able  to  maintain 


SCHEDULE   A.  133 

PARAGRAPH  13— CHALK. 

this  business  under  the  present  tariff,  and  it  appears  to  us  the  limit 
of  possibilities  in  that  direction  is  reached.  We  will  be  pleased  to 
inform  you  in  detail  any  information  we  possess  in  relation  to  this 
industry,  believing  that  careful  investigation  by  your  committee  will 
verify  these  statements  and  convince  you  that  the  industry  is  not 
deriving  undue  profit  from  the  present  rate  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent 

Ker  pound  duty,  that  the  present  rate  barely  protects  the  common 
iborer  in  this  industry  in  a  modest  wage,  and  that  any  reduction 
of  the  present  duty  is  certain  to  seriously  disturb  and,  'if  the  rate 
proposed  is  maintained  in  the  new  tariff,  probably  abolish  the  manu- 
facture of  whiting  and  Paris  white  in  this  country. 

In  this  connection  it  is  only  fair  to  state  that  the  investments  in 
mills  and  machinery,  because  of  their  nature,  would  become  practi- 
cally worthless,  seriously  crippling  the  various  owners. 

We  therefore  protest,  and  earnestly  request  that  in  your  proposed 
bill  these  articles  be  placed  at  not  less  than  that  now  imposed,  and 
further  ask  the  benefit  of  your  wide  influence  to  give  us  this  measure 
of  justice. 

I  present  this  not  only  in  my  own  behalf,  but  have  been  requested 
to  do  so  by  the  legislative  committee  of  the  whiting  manufacturers, 
all  of  whom  have  indorsed  this,  and  I  would  be  pleased  to  present  it 
as  the  brief  of  the  whiting  manufacturers,  to  be  substituted  for  any 
brief  that  any  individual  member  may  have  filed  with  your  com- 
mittee, because  it  embraces  substantially  all  the  facts  contained  in  the 
various  briefs  that  have  been  submitted. 

I  am  also  pleased  to  file  with  your  committee,  for  reference,  a 
couple  of  photographs  that  may  be  of  some  interest  in  determining 
the  competition  we  are  against  as  regards  simply  the  process  of 
manufacturing. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  CRESCENT  BURNER  MANUFACTURING  CO.,  NEW 

YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  27,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  take  the  liberty  of  submitting  to  you  herewith 
specimen  of  a  raw  material  which  is  extensively  imported  into  this 
country  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  gas  burners  and  insulators. 

This  material  is  now  taxed,  in  the  condition  in  which  we  submit 
it  to  you,  at  1  cent  per  pound,  the  same  as  talcum  powder. 

We  would  ask  to  have  this  material,  which  classifies  either  as  "cut 
steatite"  or  "  German  lava,"  on  the  free  list,  as  it  can  not  be  used  in 
this  condition  for  any  other  purposes  than  to  manufacture  other 
articles,  and  in  order  to  reduce  it  by  crushing  to  powder  American 
labor  would  have  to  be  added,  which  amounts  to  more  than  1  cent 
per  pound.  We  have  established  a  considerable  industry  with  this 
material,  and  not  only  sell  these  goods  all  over  the  United  States  but 
also  in  foreign  countries,  where  we  have  to  compete  with  the  market 
of  Germany,  which  is  also  the  country  of  origin  of  this  raw  material. 


134  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

The  case  would  be  covered  by  a  paragraph  in  Schedule  B,  which 
would  read :  "  Steatite,  German  lava,  or  soapstone,  cut  either  in  squares 
or  in  trapeze  form,  free." 
Very  respectfully, 

CRESCENT  BURNER  MANUFACTURING  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  14. 

Chloroform,  ten  cents  per  pound. 
For  chloroform,  see  also  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  48. 

PARAGRAPH  15. 

Coal-tar  dyes  or  colors,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  all  other  products  or  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not  colors 
or  dyes  and  not  medicinal,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

For  other  coal-tar  products,  etc.,  see  also  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  48; 
for  coal-tar  dyes  or  colors  n.  s.  p.  f.,  see  also  John  F.  Queeny,  page  81;  E.  C.  Klipstein, 
page  231;  Verona  Chemical  Co.,  page  71;  and  General  Chemical  Co.,  page  40. 

COAL-TAR  DYES. 

STATEMENT    OF    J.    F.    SCHOELLKOPF    ON     BEHALF    OF    THE 
SCHOELLKOPF,  HARTFOBD  &  HANNA  CO.,  BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  respectfully  request  that  no  change  be  made 
in  the  rates  on  coal-tar  dyes  and  allied  products,  covered  by  para- 
graphs 15,  482,  491,  536,  593,  and  639,  until  a  careful  and  expert 
investigation  of  the  whole  chemical  schedule  has  been  made  by  a 
committee  or  commission  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

We  are  members  of  the  Manufacturing  Chemists'  Association  of 
the  United  States  (with  the  exception  of  Central  Dyestuff  &  Chemical 
Co.)  and  we  thoroughly  agree  with  the  position  taken  by  that  associa- 
tion as  outlined  in  the  letter  of  October  31,  1912,  addressed  to  you  by 
the  chairman  of  the  executive  committee,  Mr.  Henry  Howard. 

We  maintain  that  the  coal-tar  color  industry  has  never  had  adequate 
protection  since  the  tariff  act  of  1883,  and  the  most  conclusive  proof 
of  this  is  that  the  large  German  manufacturers  have  consistently 
refused  to  establish  plants  in  the  United  States,  while  they  have  not 
hesitated  to  build  branch  factories  in  Russia,  France,  and  England, 
in  all  of  which  countries  the  consumption  of  these  dyes  is  smaller 
than  here  in  America. 

A  further  convincing  proof  that  this  industry  has  not  received 
proper  encouragement  is  the  fact  that  since  its  establishment  over  30 
years  ago  it  at  no  time  supplied  over  20  per  cent  of  the  domestic  con- 
sumption, and  at  the  present  time  more  than  80  per  cent  of  the  coal- 
tar  dyes  used  in  the  United  States  are  imported,  principally  from 
Germany. 

The  principal  reasons  for  the  nondevelopment  of  the  coal-tar 
industry  in  the  United  States  are: 

(1)  Patent  law. — Up  to  1880  the  industry  was  in  its  infancy  every- 
where, even  in  Germany.  About  that  tune  the  first  important 
German  patents  were  taken  out.  Under  our  patent  laws  then,  which 
remain  unchanged  to  this  day,  the  foreign  owners  of  patents  were  not 
compelled  to  manufacture  in  the  United  States.  The  American 


SCHEDULE  A.  135 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

manufacturers  were  therefore  restricted  to   a  few  colors,  such  as 
magentas,  rosanilinblues,  eosines,  chrysoidines,  bismarckbrowns,  etc. 

(2)  Duty  on  raw  materials. — Since  1883  the  domestic  color  manu- 
facturers were  necessarily  confined  to  using  coal-tar  products  which 
were  on  the  free  list  and  could  be  obtained  in  this  country  on  a  com- 
petitive basis,  such   as   aniline   oil   and  salts,  benzole,  nitrobenzol, 
arseniate  of  aniline,  etc.     For  this  reason  the  American  maker  was 
slow  in  taking  up  new  lines  even  when  the  expiration  of  the  foreign 
patents  permitted  him  to  do  so. 

(3)  Insufficient  duty  on  colors. — At  no  time  since  1883,  when  the 
specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound  was  taken  off  coal-tar  dyes,  was 
the  duty  on  colors  high  enough  to  compensate  for  the  difference  in 
cost  between  America  and  Europe.     This  was  true  even  for  colors 
using  free  raw  materials,  let  alone  dyes,  the  raw  materials  for  which 
were  taxed.     (See  Table  D,  annexed  hereto.)     Immediately  following 
the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1883  more  than  hah*  of  the  American 
coal-tar  dye  factories  shut  down  permanently,  and  the  few  remaining 
plants  have  kept  up  the  struggle  ever  since  under  the  most  adverse 
circumstances. 

We  refer  to  the  Report  No.  326,  on  Schedule  A,  which  report  was 
printed  to  accompany  H.  R.  20182.  On  page  17,  paragraph  4  of  this 
report,  the  following  language  occurs: 

Probably  the  most  radical  change  in  the  chemical  schedule  made  by  H.  R.  20182 
is  that  of  the  classification  and  change  of  the  duties  of  coal-tar  products.  The  manu- 
facture of  these  products  is  little  developed  in  this  country  and  imports  are  principally 
from  Germany,  where  this  manufacture  is  highly  developed. 

The  changes  alluded  to  were  radical,  indeed,  for  they  proposed  to 
reduce  the  duty  on  the  finished  colors  and  dyes  and  make  the  raw 
materials,  which  were  on  the  free  list,  dutiable,  thus  placing  the 
American  manufacturers  in  a  worse  position  than  they  ever  were  in 
before. 

Why  this  industry,  already  underprotected  and  in  a  precarious 
condition,  should  be  singled  out  in  this  manner  we  do  not  pretend  to 
understand.  If  under  present  conditions  it  is  hardly  able  to  supply 
20  per  cent  of  the  domestic  requirements,  one  can  easily  imagine 
what  would  happen  if  these  conditions  were  made  infinitely  worse  by 
adopting  such  radical  changes  as  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182. 

We  have  annexed  hereto  the  brief  submitted  to  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  during  the  tariff  revision  of  1909.  The  statements 
made  in  that  brief  are  as  true  to-day  as  they  were  then,  and  if  given 
the  opportunity  every  statement  made  therein  can  be  substantiated. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  March  14,  1912. 
Hon.  BOIES  PENROSE, 

Chairman  Senate  Committee  on  Finance. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  undersigned  respectfully  wish  to  protest  most  emphatically  against 
the  amendments  to  the  present  tariff  law  contained  in  H.  R.  20182,  paragraphs  21,  23, 
and  24,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  Even  with  the  present  duty  on  coal-tar  colors  and  with  coal-tar  products  coming 
in  free  we  are  barely  able  to  hold  our  own  against  our  foreign  competitors.     In  fact 
we  can  only  do  so  by  sacrificing  the  greater  part  of  our  legitimate  profits,  and  if  a  change 
is  made  in  the  rate  for  coal-tar  dyes  it  should  be  increased  rather  than  decreased,  as 
is  clearly  shown  by  Tables  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  annexed  hereto. 

2.  If  the  purpose  of  making  these  changes  was  to  increase  revenues  this  object  will 
not  be  attained,  for  even  if  the  importers  should  give  the  American  consumers  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  reduction  in  the  duty,  the  consumption  would  not  be  stimulated. 


136  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

If,  as  the  makers  of  the  bill  assume,  the  value  of  imported  coal-tar  dyes  would  actually 
increase  a  million  dollars,  then  as  the  total  consumption  of  coal-tar  ayes  in  the  United 
States  is  about  seven  and  one-half  millions,  of  which  the  American  manufacturer 
produces  but  one  and  one-half  millions,  the  result  would  be  to  deprive  the  domestic 
manufacturers  of  a  million  dollars  worth  of  products,  which  would  be  equivalent  to 
driving  them  out  of  business. 

3.  The  American  consumers  of  coal-tar  colors  would  not  be  benefited  by  the  reduc- 
tion in  the  duty  proposed  for  the  reason  that  the  importers  would  not  lower  their 
eelling  prices  in  the  same  ratio.    On  the  contrary,  to  judge  by  similar  experiences  in 
the  past,  the  foreign  makers,  after  eliminating  American  competition,  would  raise 
their  prices,  so  that  the  final  result  would  be  higher  prices  to  the  American  user  and 
smaller  revenues  to  the  United  States  Government. 

4.  It  would  be  an  economic  blunder  to  crush  out  American  competition  and  abandon 
the  market  to  the  mercy  of  foreign  makers.     It  has  been  our  experience  in  the  past 
that  whenever  we  came  into  the  market  with  a  new  color  the  price  of  this  particular 
dye  experienced  a  decided  drop,  thus  benefiting  the  American  consumer.    The  mere 
fact  that  the  industry  exists  in  this  country  has  a  restraining  influence  on  the  importers, 
tends  to  keep  prices  at  their  proper  level,  and  saves  the  American  consumer  from  the 
arbitrary  exactions  and  high  prices  of  the  foreign  manufacturers. 

We  beg  to  call  special  attention  to  the  fact  that  our  raw  materials,  which  are  now  on 
the  free  list  and  which  this  bill  proposes  to  tax,  can  not  be  manufactured  to  advantage 
in  this  country  for  the  reason  that  the  individual  products  are  used  in  comparatively 
small  quantities,  which  would  not  warrant  the  investment  of  the  capital  required  for 
their  manufacture.  We  speak  from  experience  in  this  matter,  for  we  ourselves  spent 
a  great  many  thousand  dollars  in  endeavoring  to  make  these  products,  but  we  finally 
had  to  give  up  the  attempt. 

We  took  up  the  manufacture  of  these  colors  in  1880  and  within  the  next  three  years 
eight  other  factories  were  established  for  the  same  purpose.  If  this  industry  had  not 
been  so  handicapped  at  that  time,  America  would  now  doubtless  be  manufacturing 
its  own  requirements  in  these  products.  But  what  happened?  The  tariff  act  of  1883 
abolished  the  specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound,  leaving  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  35 
per  cent  on  the  colors  and  20  per  cent  on  the  coal-tar  products,  the  raw  materials  for 
the  colors. 

The  immediate  result  was  that  five  of  the  new  factories  closed  their  doors,  and  the 
remaining  four  struggled  along  under  adverse  conditions,  hoping  that  some  future 
revision  would  bring  them  relief.  This  hope  was  in  vain,  however.  On  the  contrary, 
the  ad  valorem  duty  on  the  colors  was  further  reduced  to  30  per  cent  in  1897  without 
any  corresponding  reduction  in  the  duty  on  raw  materials. 

During  the  last  revision  for  the  first  time  in  30  years  Congress  evinced  a  disposition 
to  meet  us  in  a  fair  spirit  by  adding  to  the  free  list  these  additional  raw  materials: 

Naphtylaminsulfoacids  and  their  sodium  or  potassium  salts. 

Naphtolsulfoacids  and  their  sodium  or  potassium  salts. 

Amidonaphtolsulfoacids  and  their  sodium  or  potassium  salts. 

Amidosalicylic  acid. 

Diamidostiibendisulfoacid. 

Metanilic  acid. 

Paranitranilin. 

Dimethylanilin. 

Binitrochlorbenzol. 

This  enabled  us  to  increase  our  range  of  colors  considerably  but  it  certainly  is  rather 
discouraging  that  barely  two  years  after  these  changes  were  adopted,  to  practically 
put  us  out  of  business  by  not  only  again  placing  a  duty  on  these  products  but  also  at 
the  same  time  lowering  the  duty  on  the  finished  colors  to  a  point  where  their  manu- 
facture becomes  absolutely  unnemunerative. 

We  wish  to  state  here  that  we  have  signified  to  the  Tariff  Board  our  willingness  to 
open  our  books  to  them  whenever  they  are  ready  to  investigate  the  chemical  schedule. 

In  closing  we  would  like  to  draw  your  attention  to  that  part  of  the  "Glossary  on 
Schedule  A  "  prepared  by  the  Tariff  Board,  relating  to  "Special  features  of  the  German 
chemical  industry"  (p.  '224)  (H.  Kept.  326,  62d  Cong.,  p.  378)  which  discloses  in  a 
rather  startling  manner  the  danger  to  the  domestic  consumer  of  the  elimination  of 
American  competition. 

SCHOELLKOPF,  HARTFORD   &   HANNA   Co 


SCHEDULE  A.  137 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y.,  November  9,  1908. 
Hon.  SERENO  E.  PAYNE, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  undersigned  respectfully  request  that  at  the  impending  revision 
of  the  tariff  the  minimum  duty  on  coal-tar  colors  and  dyes  be  increased  from  30  per 
cent  to  40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  that  all  coal-tar  products  and  preparations  not  col- 
ors or  dyes  used  in  the  manufacture  of  these  dyes  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

In  submitting  this  request  we  do  so  with  the  understanding  that  it  is  the  intention 
of  Congress  to  adjust  import  duties,  so  as  to  give  the  domestic  manufacturer  adequate 
protection  against  his  foreign  rival,  or,  in  other  words,  the  duties  imposed  shall  cover 
the  difference  in  cost  of  the  article  protected  when  made  in  America  as  against  the 
same  article  when  made  abroad. 

In  asking  for  free  entry  of  all  coal-tar  products  and  preparations  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  coal-tar  colors,  no  American  industry  will  be  injured,  as  these  articles  are 
not  made  in  the  United  States,  nor  can  they  be  manufactured  profitably  under  exist- 
ing conditions. 

In  order  to  prove  that  our  demands  as  outlined  above  are  not  unreasonable,  we 
have  prepared  the  following  tables: 

Table  A:  Showing  cost  of  a  coal-tar  dye  plant  in  America  and  Germany  designed 
for  a  yearly  output  of  3,000,000  pounds;  also  showing  the  .cost  for  depreciation  on 
buildings  and  wear  and  tear  on  machinery  and  interest  on  investment. 

Table  B:  Showing  number  of  employees  required  and  their  salaries  for  such  a  plant 
in  America  and  Germany. 

Table  C:  Showing  material  required  to  produce  3,000,000  pounds  of  color  and  cost 
of  same  under  present  tariff;  also  under  tariff  as  proposed  by  us;  also  cost  of  same 
material  in  Germany. 

Table  D:  Showing  comparative  cost  of  3,000,000  pounds  of  color  when  produced  in 
Germany,  also  cost  when  produced  under  present  tariff,  also  cost  when  produced 
under  tariff  as  proposed  by  us. 

By  referring  to  Table  D,  it  appears  that  taking  the  cost  of  colors  in  Germany  at  100 
per  cent,  the  same  colors  cost  to  produce  in  America  under  the  present  tariff,  144.1 
per  cent,  and  in  case  all  coal-tar  preparations  should  be  admitted  free,  the  cost  would 
still  be  over  134.4  per  cent.  That  our  figures  are  correct  is  positively  proven  by  two 
highly  significant  facts: 

First.  These  same  colors  are  now  being  imported  from  Germany  and  sold  in  this 
market  for  less  than  it  costs  us  to  produce  them,  even  omitting  charges  for  depre- 
ciation and  interest  on  investment. 

Second.  By  the  fact  that  German  manufacturers  do  not  manufacture  in  the  United 
States,  because,  as  people  high  in  authority  state  openly,  they  can  manufacture  the 
colors  in  Germany  and  lay  them  down  in  the  United  States,  with  duty  of  30  per  cent 
and  manufacturer's  profit  added,  at  a  lower  price  than  they  could  manufacture  the 
same  colors  in  America. 

By  referring  again  to  the  same  table,  it  appears  that  under  the  proposed  tariff  the 
cost  of  colors  would  be  only  35  per  cent  higher  than  the  same  colors  when  made  in 
Germany,  while  we  are  asking  for  a  duty  of  40  per  cent.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
however,  that  in  the  first  place  the  American  manufacturer,  in  order  to  secure  the 
home  market,  must  be  in  a  position  to  undersell  the  importer,  and  in  the  second  place, 
the  foreign  manufacturer,  when  driven  to  it,  will  always  assume  part  of  the  duty 
himself.  The  result  would  be  that  with  a  duty  of  40  per  cent  the  American  manu- 
facturer could  not  hope  to  realize  more  than  30  per  cent  in  excess  of  what  the  same 
goods  are  sold  for  in  Germany,  and  probably  considerably  less.  In  any  event,  there- 
fore, even  with  a  40  per  cent  duty  the  American  manufacturer  would  have  to  content 
himself  with  a  considerably  smaller  profit  than  his  German  rival. 

Since  the  present  tariff  went  into  effect  American  coal-tar  dye  manufacturers  have 
striven  strenuously  to  capture  the  home  market,  and  while  they  have  succeeded  in 
increasing  very  materially  their  output,  they  have  done  so  at  no  profit  to  themselves. 
Whenever  the  domestic  production  of  any  one  color  increased  sufficiently  to  inter- 
fere seriously  with  the  sale  of  the  imported  product,  the  foreign  manufacturers  dropped 
prices  to  a  point  that  compelled  the  American  manufacturer  to  sell  at  cost  or  even  lower. 

On  the  other  hand  colors  not  made  in  America  and  controlled  by  the  foreign  manu- 
facturers, either  through  patents  or  combinations,  were  not  only  not  reduced  but  in 
many  instances  actually  increased  in  price.  Eliminate  American  competition,  and 
prices,  even  with  a  reduced  duty,  will  rise  and  not  fall.  We  refer  to  such  products  as 
alizarines,  aniline  salt,  aniline  oil,  beta  naphthol,  etc.,  which  during  the  past  few 


138 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

years  have  advanced  from  15  to  50  per  cent,  although  the  cost  of  production  has  not 
risen. 

In  conclusion  we  beg  to  state  that  the  figures  and  tables  contained  in  this  docu- 
ment are  taken  from  our  books  and  represent  actual  conditions,  and  if  desired,  we  are 
prepared  to  prove  the  correctness  of  same  in  every  particular. 

On  a  separate  sheet  annexed  hereto,  marked  "Table  E,"  we  suggest  the  wording 
of  the  sections  in  the  tariff  which  we  desire  to  have  changed. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

SCHOELLKOPP,  HARTFORD  &  HANNA  Co. 
THE  HELLER  &  MERZ  Co. 

TABLE  A. — Table  showing  cost  of  coal-tar  dye  plant  designed  for  a  yearly  output  oj  3,000,000 
pounds:  also  showing  the  cost  oj  depredation  of  buildings  and  wear  and  tear  on  machin- 
ery, etc. 


Cost  of  plant  in- 

United 
States. 

Germany. 

For  land 

$50,000.00 
100,000.00 
380,000.00 
500,000.00 

$50,000.00 
60,000.00 
250,000.00 
350,000.00 

Fnr  buildings 

For  machinery,  tools,  etc  

For  working  capital.  

Total  cost  of  plant  

1,030,000.00 

710,000.00 

Depreciation  on  buildings,  5  per  cent  

5,000.00 
38,000.00 
61,800.00 

3,000.00 
25,000.00 

42,600.00 

Wear  and  tear  on  machinery,  etc.,  10  per  cent    

Into  rpst  nn  invpstrnpnt,  fi  por  npnt 

Total  

104,800.00 

70,600.00 

TABLE  B. — Table  showing  employees  needed  for  a  coal-tar  dye  plant  with  a  yearly  capacity 

of  3,000,000  pounds. 


United  States. 

Germany. 

Rate. 

Total. 

Rate. 

Total.' 

1  general  manager  

$10,000.00 
5,000.00 
1,500.00 
1,300.00 
900.00 
1,  144.  00 
468.00 
312.00 
208.00 
2,  500.  00 
1,800.00 
1,  200.  00 
900.00 
780.00 
500.00 
364.00 
1,560.00 
1,200.00 
1,040.00 
780.00 
728.00 
624.00 
780.00 
936.  00 
676.  00 
624.00 
718.00 
540.00 

$10,000.00 
10,000.00 
6,000.00 
1,300.00 
900.00 
3,432.00 
468.00 
312.00 
416.00 
2,500.00 
1,800.00 
1,  200.  00 
2,  700.  00 
780.00 
1,000.00 
364.00 
1,560.00 
1,  200.  00 
2,080.00 
4,680.00 
1,456.00 
1,248.00 
3,  120.  00 
1,872.00 
1,352.00 
2,  496.  00 
7,180.00 
44,  820.  00 

$5,000.00 
2,500.00 
1,000.00 
800.00 
600.00 
390.00 
160.00 
135.00 
78.00 
1,  220.  00 
900.00 
600.00 
450.00 
350.00 
250.00 
160.00 
750.00 
450.00 
520.00 
390.00 
390.00 
390.00 
390.00 
468.00 
468.00 
2CO.OO 
390.00 
300.00 

$5,000.00 
5,000.00 
4,000.00 
800.00 
600.00 
1,170.00 
160.00 
135.00 
156.00 
1,200.00 
900.00 
600.00 
1,350.00 
350.00 
500.00 
160.00 
750.00 
450.00 
1,040.00 
2,340.00 
780.00 
780.00 
1,560.00 
936.00 
936.  00 
1,040.00 
3,900.00 
24,900.00 

2  head  chemists  

4  chemists  .          

Do  

3  dyers  

1  helper  

Do..             

2  boys. 

1  head  bookkeeper  

1  clerk 

Do  

3  clerks. 

1  clerk  

2  boys 

1  telephone  operator 

1  superintendent  

1  shipping  clerk  

2  engineers  

C  firemen  

2  watchmen 

2  teamsters  .            

4  carpenters  

2  machinists    .  . 

2  blacksmiths  

4  helpers 

10  foremen  

83  laborers 

Total... 

llo,236.  00 

61,493.00 

SCHEDULE   A.  139 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

TABLE  C. — Material  required  for  3,000,000  pounds  of  coal-tar  dyes  and  cost  of  same. 


Chemicals  used. 

Quantities 
in  pounds. 

Cost  in  United  States— 

Cost  in 
Germany. 

Under 
present 
tariff. 

Under  pro- 
posed 

tariff. 

Nitrite  soda  

385,803 
1,369,125 
122,814 
790,875 
111,942 
3,371,280 
4,860 
2,880 
4,437 
139,041 
68,445 
593,145 
54,270 
29,295 
35,910 
9,630 
4,032 
12,420 
18,720 
19,908 
47,952 
104,625 
23,400 
25,740 
218,340 

$29,899.74 
10,268.43 
409.38 
7,592.40 
2,417.94 
5,899.74 
65.61 
144.00 
1,668.30 
16,  128.  75 
16,426.80 
206,414.46 
4,205.94 
4,247.79 
9,605.91 
1,661.16 
695.52 
5,464.80 
4,867.20 
4,411.62 
5.591.19 
22J  965.  18 
7,317.18 
8,494.20 
66,047.85 

$29,899.74 
10,268.43 
409.38 
7,592.  40 
2,417.94 
5,899.74 
65.61 
144.00 
1,387.89 
16,128.75 
13,689.00 
172,605.21 
4,205.94 
3,544.71 
7,989.96 
1,396.35 
584.64 
4,558.14 
2,822.97 
4,081.14 
5,072.22 
21,228.09 
5,974.02 
8,494.20 
66,047.85 

$23,919.79 
8,214.74 
327.50 
6,073.92 
1,934.35 
4,719.79 
52.49 
115.20 
1,110.31 
12,903.00 
10,951.20 
138,084.17 
3,364.75 
2,835.77 
6,391.96 
1,117.08 
467.71 
3,646.51 
2,258.38 
3,264.91 
4,057.78 
16,982.47 
4,779.22 
6,795.36 
52,838.28 

Muriatic  acid 

Sulphuric  acid  

Carbonate  soda  

Caustic  soda  

Common  salt  

Sulphide  sodium  

Ammonia  26'  mono-aethyl  .  . 

Alpha  naphthylamine  .  .          ... 

Aniline  oil  

Paranitraniline  

H-acid       

Alpha  naphthylamine  

R-salt  .  .  .  t  "  

A  Tnidn-fr-sfl.lt   .  L  ..... 

Freund's  acid  

Cleve  acid  

Gamma  acid  

Salicylic  acid  

A  A  Tm  Ba  

A  B  Sp  Sa         

A  A  Bm  Ba  

A  A  TmS  

Tolidine.                     

Benzidine  

Total..              

7,568,889 

442,911.09 

396,508.32 

317,206.64 

TABLE  D. — Cost  of  producing  8,000,000  pounds  of  coal-tar  dyes. 


Materials,  labor,  fuel,  etc. 

When  made  in  United 
States. 

When 
made  in 
Germany. 

Under 
present 
tariff. 

Under 
proposed 
tariff. 

Materials... 

$442,911.09 
20,250.00 
116,236.00 
61,800.00 
43,000.00 
8,000.00 

$396,508.32 
20,250.00 
116,236.00 
61,800.00 
43,000.00 
8,000.00 

8317,206.64 
27,000.00 
61,493.00 
42,600.00 
28,000.00 
4,000.00 

Fuel  

Labor 

Interest  on  investment 

Depreciation  on  plant              

Taxes,  fire  insurance,  and  incidentals  

Total  

692,197.09 

645,784.32 

480,299.64 

Per  cent  

144.1 

134.4 

100 

140 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 
TABLE  E. 


Present  wording. 

New  wording  suggested. 

SEC.  15.  Coal-tar  dyes  or  colors,  not  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
all  other  products  or  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not 
colors  or  dyes  and  not  madicinal,  not  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Coal-tar  dyes  or  colors,  not  specially  provided  for 
in  this  act,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

FREE  LIST. 

SEC.  469.  Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial,  and  dyes 
derived  from  alizarin  or  from  anthracin. 
SEC.  524.  Coal  tar,  crude,  pitch  of  coal  tar,  and 
products  of  coal  tar  known  as  dead  or  creosote  oil,  ben- 
zol, toluol,  naphthalin,  xylol,  phenol,  cresol,  xylidin, 
toluidine,  cumidin,  binitrotoluol,binitrobenzol,  ben- 
zidin,  tolidin,  dianisidine,  naphthol,  naphthylamin, 
diphenylamin,  benzaldehyde,  benzyl  chloride,  re- 
sorcin,  nitrobenzol,  and  nitrotoluol;  all  the  forego- 
ing not  medicinal  and  not  colors  or  dyes. 
SEC.  580.  Indigo. 

No  change  suggested.          . 

Coal  tar,  crude,  and  all  products  or  preparations 
of  coal  tar,  not  colors  or  dyes  and  not  medicinal,  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  act. 

No  change  suggested. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  if  you  are  through  with  your  brief,  let  me 
ask  you  a  question.  The  manufacturer  of  coal-tar  dye  in  this  country 
is  really  assembling  a  partly  finished  product  and  it  is  only  the  question 
of  assembling  what  has  already  been  manufactured  after  it  gets  into 
this  country? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Oh,  no. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  describe  that  to  the  committee. 
In  the  first  place  tell  us  what  raw  material  you  import. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  import  coal-tar  products,  nitrate  of  soda, 
and  we  use  very  many  domestic  chemicals,  sulphuric  and  muriatic 
acid,  caustic  soda,  and  soda  ash,  common  salt,  coal,  etc. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  do  after  you  get  those  acids,  sodas, 
or  manufactured  products  when  they  come  in  here  ?  When  you  get 
them  here,  what  do  you  do  to  make  your  product? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  put  them  through  the  regular  process  of 
manufacture,  combining  certain  chemicals  under  certain  conditions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  merely  the  process  of  mixing  them  together  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Much  more.  Chemical  changes  take  place 
there — very  radical  chemical  changes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  chemical  changes  take  place,  but  I  am 
talking  about  a  mechanical  proposition,  as  far  as  labor  and  time  are 
concerned.  It  is  a  question  of  mixing  them  together? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Chairman;  you  are  entirely  mis- 
informed there.  It  takes  us  about  four  weeks  to  complete  the  manu- 
facture of  our  color.  The  process  takes  us  four  weeks.  You  can 
hardly  say  that  it  is  simply  stirring  them  together.  There  are  quite 
a  few  manufacturers  on  the  other  side  that  do  the  same  thing  we  do. 
They  buv  the  intermediate  products  or  raw  materials  and  manu- 
facture the  color  from  those. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  trying  to  get  this  proposition:  The  four 
weeks  that  it  takes,  is  that  in  the  process  of  manufacture  all  of  that 
time,  or  do  you  mix  them  together  and  wait  for  four  weeks  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Oh,  no. 


SCHEDULE   A.  141 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Describe  to  the  committee  what  you  do.  After 
you  get  this  manufactured  product  that  you  use  for  your  manu- 
factured product,  what  do  you  do  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Well,  we  will  take  one  color;  for  instance, 
magenta;  we  would  mix  nitrpbenzol  with  aniline  oil  and  apply  heat. 
That  would  probably  be  agitated  for  four  days.  Then  trie  surplus 
aniline  oil  is  removed  by  distillation.  The  resulting  crude  smelt  is 
then  dissolved  in  large  tanks,  and  then  drawn  off  in  large  vats. 
Here  about  30  per  cent  of  the  color  crystallizes.  The  remaining  liquor 
is  again  boiled  down  and  recrystaUized.  This  process  is  repeated  until 
all  of  the  color  is  exhausted,  the  whole  process  taking  about  two 
months. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  total  cost  of  manufacture  hi  your 
plant,  including  labor  and  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  labor  is  about  20  per  cent  and  the  crude 
material  is  about  60  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  overhead  charges  are  about  how  much  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  They  make  up  the  balance  of  about  20  per 
cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Sixty  per  cent  for  raw  material;  is  that  your  raw 
material  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Twenty  per  cent  for  labor  and  20  per  cent  for  over- 
head charges  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  to  ask  the 
witness  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  There  are  a  few  more  remarks  I  would  like  to 
make,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  HILL.  This  is  what  strikes  me  as  a  typical  case  with  reference 
to  this  schedule,  and  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two.  Three 
years  ago  you  came  before  this  committee  and  submitted  your  books 
as  to  the  results  of  your  business. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  have  before  me  the  statement  that  you  made  at  that 
time,  showing  the  cost  of  coal-tar  dyes  made  from  the  intermediate 
products  of  coal  tar,  showing  a  difference  of  44  per  cent  between  this 
country  and  Germany. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Those  books  were  examined  by  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  and  as  a  result  a  duty  of  35  per  cent  instead  of  44  per 
cent  was  recommended. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  Senate  cut  that  down  to  30  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  have  been  going  on  with  that  duty  since,  have 
you  not? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Have  there  been  any  excessive  profits  under  that  duty, 
from  that  time  to  this  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  sir;  in  fact,  our  profits  are  less. 


142  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  15— COAL-TAB  DYES. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  suppose  you  are  perfectly  willing  to  submit  your  books 
to  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  are  you  not,  just  as  you  did  three 
years  ago  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  This  proposed  bill — I  will  not  say  that;  I  have  no 
authority  to  say  that — but  the  bill  that  was  proposed  by  the  Dem- 
ocratic House  last  session  provided  for  cutting  down  that  duty  5  per 
cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes :  from  30  to  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  for  increasing  the  duty  on  raw  material  10  per 
cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  see  by  your  statement  here,  which  I  assume  you  still 
continue  as  correct,  notwithstanding  the  lapse  of  three  years'  time 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF  (interposing) .  I  do. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  the  materials  constitute  about  two-thirds  of  the 
cost  of  the  product. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  About  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  So  that  the  duty  on  the  materials  would  be  6.6  per  cent 
of  the  entire  product,  making  a  reduction  of  11.6  per  cent. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  On  that  duty  of  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  you  carry  on  that  industry  at  18.6  per  cent  duty 
without  a  reduction  of  labor? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  can  not  carry  it  on  and  make  any  money 
out  of  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  you  carry  it  on  without  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of 
labor,  at  a  duty  of  18.6  per  cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  If  that  bill  was  passed  as  it  is  now,  and  leaving 
the  labor  as  it  is,  we  could  make  absolutely  no  profit. 

Mr.  HILL.  How  much  of  a  reduction,  in  your  judgment,  in  the  cost 
of  labor,  would  be  necessary,  with  a  duty  of  18.6  per  cent  on  coal-tar 
d}^es  and  colors  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  would  have  to  cut  down  our  labor  one-half. 

Mr.  HILL.  About  one-half  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Could  you  do  it;  would  it  be  possible  to  do  that? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No ;  we  could  not  do  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  proposed,  as  to  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors,  to  put  a 
10  per  cent  duty  on  the  raw  materials  and  cut  the  finished  product 
5  per  cent,  and  that  would  absolutely  compel  you  to  stop  the  industry 
of  making  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Unless  we  wanted  to  carry  it  on  at  a  loss. 

Mr.  HILL.  To  go  one  step  further:  Would  there  be  any  revenue 
received  whatever  on  the  10  per  cent  duty  on  the  intermediate 
products ;  would  there  be  any  imported  under  ohose  circumstances  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Not  so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  you  are  typical  of  the  industry,  are  you  not;  you 
are  about  as  large  as  anybody  in  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 


SCHEDULE   A.  143 

PARA  GRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  HELL.  Then  there  would  be  no  revenue;  from  the  standpoint 
of  revenue  there  would  be  no  gain  in  this  bill  by  putting  10  per  cent 
on  the  intermediate  coal-tar  products? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  woula  not  say  that  absolutely,  because  some 
are  used  outside  of  colors. 

Mr.  HILL.  So  far  as  your  industry  is  concerned  there  would  be  no 
gain  in  revenue  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No. 

Mr.  HELL.  It  would  be  necessary,  then,  to  increase  the  importa- 
tions, the  quantity  of  importations  of  the  finished  product,  enough 
to  make  up  for  the  5  per  cent  loss  in  duty  on  the  finished  product  ? 
Do  you  not  think  that  would  be  done  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No. 

Mr.  HULL.  Did  you  reduce  the  price  of  labor  when  these  other 
reductions  were  made  in  the  present  law  ? 

Mr.  HELL.  There  was  no  reduction. 

Mr.  HULL.  I  misunderstood  the  witness,  then. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  There  was  a  reduction  by  the  Dingley  bill  from  the 
act  of  1883  and  by  the  act  of  1897,  was  there  not? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  There  was  a  reduction  in  1883. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Was  the  reduction  in  1883  greater  than  in  1897? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  were  hardly  started  hi  1883. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  There  were  some  industries  in  1883,  were  there  not? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  They  did  not  amount  to  very  much  in  those 
days. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  there  were  no  industries,  what  did  they  want  to 
reduce  the  tariff  for  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  They  wanted  to  get  goods  in  cheaper,  I 
presume. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  I  understand  that  they  reduced  the  wages  after 
1883,  after  reducing  the  tariff? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  can  not  reduce  wages. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  In  fact,  wages  have  been  increased  since  the  tariff 
has  been  decreased,  have  they  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  told  Mr.  Hill  you  could  not  make  any  money 
with  18§  per  cent  tariff  on  the  finished  product? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  making  very  little  now. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Very  little  now  on  30  per  cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  do  you  think  would  be  a  fab*  rate,  so  that 
the  industry  could  make  as  much  profit  as  the  industry  would  like  to 
make? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  is  not  a  question  of  what  we  would  like  to 
make.  It  is  a  question  of  what  is  fair. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Well,  reasonable? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  think  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Thirty-five  per  cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  not  asking  for  that,  you  understand, 
but  that  would  be  the  fair  thing. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  think  35  per  cent  would  satisfy  you? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  would  satisfy  me. 


144  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  15— COAL-TAB  DYES. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  wage  earners  are  employed  in  this 
industry  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Altogether,  probably  six  or  seven  hundred. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Probably  six  or  seven  hundred,  I  presume, 
altogether. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  mean  that  is  for  your  own  plant  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  our  plant  has  only  about  300. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  whole  industry  employs  six  or  seven  hundred? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  imagine  so.  I  do  not  know  how  many  the 
other  plants  have. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is,  in  the  entire  country  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  directly  employed  in  the  industry. 
Of  course,  indirectly,  there  are  more  employed. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  understand.  What  is  the  average  amount  of 
wages  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Well,  to  our  ordinary  labor  we  pay  about  $2  a 
day. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  $2  a  day  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  then,  of  course,  it  goes  up;  to  skilled  labor 
we  pay  $3  and  more.  We  employ  quite  a  few  mechanics  and  pipe 
fitters,  and  other  skilled  hands. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  work  any  women  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  hours  a  day  do  they  work? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Nine  to  ten  hours. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Do  you  work  any  children  under  16  years  of  age? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  know  about  how  much  yearly  the  imports 
of  this  color  are  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  About  six  millions. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  About  six  millions. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  know  what  wages  are  paid  in  Germany 
for  the  same  class  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  They  pay  about  3^  marks. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  About  80  cents  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  is  about  80  to  90  cents. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question:  Is  your  labor 
more  efficient  than  the  labor  in  Germany? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Xo. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  It  is  not  more  efficient  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Not  in  our  industry. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Man  for  man,  your  labor  is  not  more  efficient 
than  corresponding  labor  in  Germany? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  But  your  wages  are  more  than  they  are  in 
Germany  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir.  If  we  could  make  the  difference  in 
our  wages  we  would  be  satisfied. 


SCHEDULE   A.  145 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  there  any  tariff  on  these  articles  in  Germany? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  are  admitted  free? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  But  there  is  a  tariff  in  France  and  in  Russia. 
There  is  no  tariff  in  Germany. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Speak  a  little  louder. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  There  is  no  tariff  in  Germany,  but  there  is  in 
France  and  Russia. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  not  the  tariff  in  Germany  on  the  finished  product 
and  no  tariff  on  the  raw  materials  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  They  do  not  need  any  tariff.  They  would  have 
one  quickly  enough  if  they  needed  one. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Why  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Because  they  put  tariffs  on.  I  know  of  other 
goods  that  are  imported  into  Germany,  and  when  they  found  the 
domestic  manufacturers  could  not  compete  they  put  a  tariff  on. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  say,  why  is  it  they  do  not  need  any.  You  said  they 
do  not. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Because  they  can  produce  goods  cheaper  than 
we  can  here. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Is  not  that  because  their  labor  in  chemicals,  in  a 
general  way,  is  more  efficient  than  in  this  country? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  would  not  say  that;  but  their  labor  is  cheaper. 
Where  we  pay  $200,000  they  pay  $100,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  not  that  same  labor,  so  far  as  dollars  and  cents  are 
concerned,  cheaper  in  every  other  single  industry  than  it  is  here  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  How  is  that  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  not  the  labor  in  Germany  in  every  other  industry 
cheaper,  as  far  as  dollars  and  cents  are  concerned,  or  as  far  as  the 
amount  they  pay  per  day  is  concerned,  than  it  is  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Labor  is  cheaper,  certainly. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yet  the  German  tariff  is  the  highest  of  all  foreign 
tariffs,  is  it  not,  on  practically  everything  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  may  be  on  some  articles.  On  some  things 
possibly  we  have  an  advantage.  Take  leather,  for  instance 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Take  what  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Leather.  I  know  my  father  started  to  import 
leather  in  1873  into  Germany,  until  they  put  the  tariff  so  high  that  he 
could  not  import  a  cent's  worth  any  more. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  wish  to  say  that  Germany  has  a  tariff  on  dyes,  but 
none  on  the  raw  material. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  other  difference  in  cost  between  your 
mill  and  your  competitors  in  Germany,  except  the  labor  cost  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Well,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  cost  of  mate- 
rial. Our  materials,  if  we  imported  them  free,  would  cost  pretty 
nearly  10  per  cent  more  than  they  do  on  the  other  side. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  on  account  of  the  tax  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  On  account  of  the  freight  and  charges  of  one 
kind  and  another. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  pay  freight  charges  on  the  other  side  that 
more  than  equalize  the  freight  rate  on  your  raw  material  ? 

78959°— VOL  1—13 10 


146  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  but  it  is  relatively  small.  You  see  the 
finished  product  costs  more.  The  freight  on  a  30-cent  article  is  not 
much  more,  if  anything  more,  than  freight  on  a  5-cent  article,  while 
on  a  5-cent  article  it  would  amount  to  10  per  cent  and  on  a  30-cent 
article  it  would  only  amount  to  2  or  3  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN,  How  much  difference  would  there  be  in  the  cost 
on  account  of  the  freight,  do  you  think  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  On  that  finished  product  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  Assuming  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
freight  rates  in  bringing  them  over,  how  large  a  percentage  on  your 
total  output,  your  total  product,  would  that  amount  to  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Well,  60  per  cent  of  our  product  is  raw  mate- 
rial, and  that  costs  us  10  per  cent  to  import;  it  would  mean  that  ours 
would  cost  us  66  per  cent  where  it  would  only  cost  them  60  per  cent 
on  the  other  side. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  6  per  cent  difference  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  10  per  cent  difference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Ten  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  that  difference  is  as  much  as  10  per 
cent? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  main  difference  in  the  cost,  then,  is  in  refer- 
ence to  getting  your  raw  materials  here,  your  freight  rates,  etc.,  and 
your  labor  cost? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  and  not  only  that.  Of  course,  our  do- 
mestic products  are  more  expensive.  Take  our  acids.  They  cost  a 
great  deal  more  here  than  they  do  on  the  other  side.  Our  buildings 
cost  a  good  deal  more  than  they  do  on  the  other  side.  Our  repairs 
cost  double  what  they  do  on  the  other  side,  and  there  are  quite  a  lot 
of  repairs  in  the  chemical  industry  in  general. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  only  a  small  percentage  of  your  total  out- 
put, is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  it  is  quite  an  item.  I  have  set  it  all  out 
in  that  brief. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  one  question  there:  You  said  the 
difference  in  the  labor  cost  is  about  as  one  is  to  two;  that  is,  you 
pay  pay  twice  as  much  as  thev  do  on  the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  fully. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  your  total  labor  cost  on  that  product  is  only 
20  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  product  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  10  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  product 
would  cover  the  difference  in  the  labor  cost? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Certainly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  if  we  add  an  18  per  cent  net  tariff  to  you, 
there  is  a  margin  of  8  per  cent  above  your  difference  in  labor  cost  to 
cover  these  other  charges,  is  there  not? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  I  know;  but  they  are  more  than  made  up 
by  the  other  increased  expenses. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  are  not  very  far  wrong  in  equalizing  the 
difference  in  cost  in  that  18  per  cent,  are  we? 


SCHEDULE   A.  147 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  you  are,  because  I  showed  just  a  moment 
ago  that  if  these  materials  that  we  import  would  come  in  free  they 
would  cost  us  about  10  per  cent  more  than  they  pay  on  the  other 
side.  There  is  more  than  18£  per  cent  right  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  If  we  import  the  raw  material,  it  costs  us  about 
10  per  cent  more  to  import  it  on  account  of  the  charges. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  have  18  per  cent  above  the  difference  in  the 
raw  material,  after  you  equalize  the  duty  on  the  raw  material,  in 
subtracting  that  from  the  duty  you  have  on  the  finished  product 
you  still  have  18  per  cent  net  profit  to  you  under  this  bill  that  Mr. 
Hill  was  questioning  you  about  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  are  mistaken  there. 
That  is  so  theoretically;  but,  'of  course,  we  pay  in  addition  to  the 
10  per  cent  that  you  intend  to  impose  on  the  raw  material  10  per 
cent  in  charges,  so  that  we  are  really  paying  20  per  cent,  under  a 
law  like  that,  more  for  our  raw  materials  than  they  pay  on  the  other 
side.  I  say,  if  it  comes  in  free,  it  would  cost  us  10  per  cent  to  import 
it.  Now,  if  you  put  another  10  per  cent  on,  it  would  be  20  per  cent; 
then  10  per  cent  increase  in  the  cost  of  labor  would  mean  30  per  cent 
right  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  realize  that.  But  if  you  subtract  the  duty 
placed  on  the  raw  materials  from  the  duty  we  gave  you  on  the  finished 
product,  that  would  leave  you  with  a  net  duty  of  about  18  per  cent. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No.  You  have  10  per  cent  on  the  raw  materials 
and  25  per  cent  on  the  colors. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  just  a  moment  ago  stated  to  Mr.  Hill  that 
his  statement  to  that  effect  was  correct. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  under  the  present  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  did  not  ask  you  about  the  present  law;  he  asked 
you  about  the  proposed  bill  that  came  before  Congress  the  last  time, 
and  you  stated,  in  answer  to  his  question,  that  there  was  an  18  per 
cent  difference,  which  is  the  fact.  If  you  will  take  the  figures  and 
estimate  them,  you  will  find  that  there  is  a  difference  of  18  per  cent 
between  your  raw  material  and  your  finished  product.  You  agreed 
to  that  when  Mr.  Hill  asked  you  the  question.  Now,  if  you  have  an 
18  per  cent  difference  in  the  net  protection  to  you,  incidental  or  other- 
wise, and  your  10  per  cent  equalizes  your  difference  in  labor  cost  and 
your  cost  of  transportation  and  assembling  these  products,  which 
according  to  your  statement  is  10  per  cent,  this  duty  must  very  closely 
equalize  your  difference  in  cost. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  did  not  understand  him  to  say  that  10  per  cent 
would  equalize  the  difference  in  cost. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  20  per  cent  of  the  finished 
product  represents  labor? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  said  10  per  cent  would  equalize  only  the 
difference  in  labor  cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  said  that  the  total  labor  cost  was  20  per  cent  of 
the  finished  product.  He  said  the  difference  in  labor  cost  was  about 
one  as  to  two,  and  that  he  paid  $200,000  and  they  paid  $100,000.  It 
is  self-evident  that  if  that  is  the  case  10  per  cent  would  equalize  the 
difference  in  labor  cost — 10  per  cent  of  the  finished  product  would 


148  IABIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR,  DYES. 

equalize  the  difference  in  labor  cost.  That  is  merely  a  mathematical 
calculation. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  I  do  not  understand  is  his  statement  that  he 
still  would  have  about  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Because  the  freight  charges  and  the  charges  in 
bringing  them  through  the  customhouse  will  amount  to  10  per  cent 
of  the  cost  of  the  raw  materials. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  mean  to  say  it  is  10  per  cent  on  the  raw  mate- 
rials you  use — that  the  freight  charges  are  10  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Exactly;  we  figure  about  a  cent  a  pound. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  figure  that,  but  what  does  it  actually  cost  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  does  cost  actually  that  much;  it  may  be 
more  on  some  and  a  little  less  on  others. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  not  the  foreigners  have  to  pay  these  freight 
charges  too? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  If  we  get  an  article  that  costs  5  cents  a  pound 
the  charges  will  be  20  per  cent,  and  on  a  10-cent  article  would  be 
about  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Would  not  the  foreigners  who  are  competing  with 
you  have  to  pay  that  10  per  cent  on  the  finished  material  too  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  But  where  they  import  a  pound  of  color,  we 
have  to  import  two  pounds  of  this  raw  material,  and  they  pay  the 
freight  on  the  high-priced  article  where  the  percentage  will  probably 
be  2  or  3  per  cent.  The  average  price  of  our  colors  which  we  sold 
last  year  was  33  cents. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Would  there  be  a  higher  freight  rate  on  the  finished 
articles  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Very  little,  if  any. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  chairman  has  asked  you  what  the  difference  in 
labor  cost  is,  and  you  state  10  per  cent,  and  that,  according  to  your 
brief,  is  correct;  that  is,  10  per  cent  of  the  American  cost,  and  he 
asks  you  the  question  whether  18  per  cent  would  not  cover  it  and 
more  too.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  commonly  overlooked,  that  the  import 
duty  is  laid  on  the  cost  of  the  foreign  product  and  not  on  the  Ameri- 
can product,  and  that  therefore  it  would  take  20  per  cent  to  cover 
the  difference  in  labor  cost,  if  the  difference  was  10  per  cent  of  the 
American  cost,  being  about  one- half  as  you  stated? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  I  presume  that  would  be  so. 

Mr.  HILL.  Of  course,  that  is  true,  that  the  duty  is  laid  on  the 
foreign  cost  and  not  on  the  American  cost.  So  that  the  duty  to 
cover  the  difference  in  labor  cost  alone,  according  to  your  own  show- 
ing here,  would  have  to  be  more  than  18.6  per  cent,  which  you  have 
said  would  be  the  difference  under  this  new  tariff.  Now,  I  want  to 
ask  you  another  question  on  the  general  industry. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  You  do  not  wait  to  hear  his  answer  to  your 
other  question. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  will  wait.     That  is  correct,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes.     It  is  exactly  so. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  difference  is  10  per  cent  of  the  American  cost  of 
labor  and  that  is  twice  as  much  as  the  foreign  cost  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 


SCHEDULE   A.  149 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  HILL.  Consequently,  a  compensating  duty  on  a  foreign  prod- 
uct of  half  the  American  value  would  have  to  be  twice  10  per  cent 
to  make  up  that  difference.  I  think  that  is  plain  enough. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  HILL.  If  I  recollect  rightly,  you  stated  three  years  ago  that  the 
patents  on  these  coal-tar  dyes  had  largely  expired,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  So  that  they  had  become  open  to  American  competition  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  correct? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  there  still  a  large  number  of  patents  in  coal-tar  dyes 
that  are  still  held  by  the  Germans  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  There  are  quite  a  large  number,  but  they  are 
not  as  important  as  those  that  have  expired. 

Mr.  HILL.  So  that  competition  would  not  be  complete,  so  far  as  the 
general  range  of  coal-tar  dyes  is  concerned,  but  only  on  those  that 
are  not  covered  by  German  patents  held  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  but  at  the  same  tune  if  we  could  make  the 
colors  that  are  open  to  us  to  make  that  are  not  patented,  and  if  we 
could  make  those  and  make  them  at  a  profit,  we  would  be  perfectly 
satisfied.  That  would  be  the  bulk  of  the  colors  that  are  in  use  at  the 
present  tune. 

Mr.  HILL.  So  far  as  the  coal-tar  dyes  are  concerned  that  are 
covered  by  patents,  they  are  owned  absolutely  by  a  syndicate  in 
Germany,  are  they  not,  so  that  it  is  a  trust-controlled  product  abso- 
lutely? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  true. 

Mr,  HILL.  So  far  as  those  patents  are  concerned? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes.  There  are  two  combinations  over  there, 
but  they  work  together,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  have  a  list  of  them  here  in  the  committee's  report,  a 
list  of  five  concerns  in  Germany  that  were  the  owners  of  the  patents 
on  coal-tar  dye  products  in  the  United  States.  Is  not  the  effect  of 
this  legislation,  if  carried  into  effect,  to  give  absolute  control  to  a 
foreign  trust,  a  syndicate  authorized  and  legalized  by  the  German 
Government,  and  to  give  them  the  benefit  of  the  American  trade 
rather  than  give  the  advantage  to  American  manufacturers? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  well  known. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  what? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  well  known,  that  fact. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Other  things  being  arranged  by  Congress,  as 
you  think  they  ought  to  be,  the  question  of  patents  would  not  inter- 
fere with  your  successful  manufacture  of  these  articles  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  There  are  no  patents  that  would  interfere  with 
your  manufacturing  as  cheaply  as  other  nations  if  you  could  get  other 
matters  arranged  to  your  liking? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  There  are  some  colors  that  we  oould  not  manu- 
facture at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  But  you  do  not  regard  that  as  materially 
interfering  ? 


150  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAJL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  But  the  more  important  colors  are  open  to 
competition. 

Mr.  HULL.  The  cost  of  machinery,  tools,  and  so  forth,  constitute 
more  than  a  third,  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  hah1,  of  the  total  cost  of 
one  of  these  plants,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  just  about. 

Mr.  HULL.  Where  do  you  get  your  machinery?  Do  you  import 
any  of  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  we  get  it  all  here  in  America. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  are  the  tariff  rates  on  machinery  that  you  use  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  What  are  the  rates  ? 

Mr.  HULL.  Yes. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  know.     Our  machinery  is  mostly  iron. 

Mr.  HULL.  Do  you  know  what  effect  the  present  rate  on  the 
machinery  you  use  has  on  the  prices  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  In  our  statement  we  show  that  the  interest  on 
the  investment  was  $61,800  for  a  certain  sized  plant,  against  $32,400 
in  Germany. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  I  was  getting  at  is,  what  is  the  present  effect  of 
the  existing  tariff  on  the  prices  or  the  machinery  you  use  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  have  very  much 
effect,  because  the  things  that  we  use  are  largely  cast  iron  and  it  is 
doubtful  whether  we  could  import  that,  pay  the  freight  on  the  stuff, 
and  get  it  out  much  cheaper,  even  if  the  present  duty  was  lowered. 
Of  course,  it  costs  us  quite  a  little  more  here  than  it  does  on  the 
other  side,  but  it  is  doubtful  in  my  mind  whether  it  would  help  us 
very  much  i£  the  duty  was  reduced  on  those  goods. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  we  keep  the  tariff  like  you  want  it  on  your  prod- 
ucts, you  are  willing  to  keep  the  tariff  on  machinery  and  others  like 
they  want  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  have  not  interested  ourselves  by  any  study 
along  those  lines;  we  have  not  looked  into  it  for  that  feature;  but  I 
do  not  see  how  that  would  help  us  very  much. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  That  is  a  sort  of  general  understanding  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  A  good  deal  of  that  machinery  is  made  after 
our  own  plan,  and  we  would  never  think  of  going  to  Germany  or 
France  and  have  the  machinery  made  and  wait  probably  three  or 
four  months  for  it,  particularly  if  we  could  have  it  made  here. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  other  words,  your  interests  are  not  asking  for  any 
reduction  in  the  tariff  on  machinery  and  such  apparatus  or  anything 
of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  not  asking,  at  this  hearing,  for  any- 
thing of  that  kind.  We  are  simply  asking  that  the  rates  on  these 
products  of  our  manufacture  be  let  alone  until  some  committee  can 
satisfy  itself  as  to  what  is  needed. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  To  be  left  alone,  and  if  touched  at  all,  to  be  increased 
a  little  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  not  asking  for  that.  We  are  simply 
asking  the  committee  to  look  carefully  and  properly  into  the  thing. 
We  are  willing  to  open  our  books,  and  if  we  can  satisfy  them  we  are 
entitled  to  more,  then  give  us  more;  and  if  after  they  have  looked  into 


SCHEDULE   A.  151 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

the  matter  they  do  not  think  we  should  have  it,  or  they  think  it 
should  be  lowered,  let  them  put  it  down. 

Mr.  JAMES.  In  this  brief  that  you  have  filed  here  you  make  the 
statement  that  the  machinery  here  costs  you  more  than  the  machinery 
costs  your  competitors  in  Germany  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  that  caused  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  you  have  a 
better  class  of  machinery,  or  by  reason  of  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  it  is  by  reason  of  cheaper  labor  on  the  other 
side.  Of  course  they  can  produce  machinery  on  the  other  side 
cheaper  than  we  can  here. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Then,  there  is  a  tariff  on  that  machinery,  or  else  you 
would  buy  it  instead  of  American  machinery,  if  you  could  buy  it 
cheaper  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  doubt  whether  we  could  import  it. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  say,  if  you  could  buy  machinery  manufactured  hi 
Germany  cheaper  than  American  machinery,  you  would  buy  it  as  a 
matter  of  economy  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Probably  so,  as  a  matter  of  economy;  but  most 
of  our  machinery  is  hi  the  nature  of  replacements,  where  we  must  be 
in  touch  with  the  foundry  or  the  machine  shop,  right  in  our  own  town, 
so  that  if  anything  comes  up  where  any  slight  change  must  be  made, 
we  can  go  right  there  and  attend  to  it.  I  do  not  think  we  could  do 
that  with  the  special  machinery  required  in  our  business  if  we  bought 
it  at  long  range. 

Mr.  JAMES.  There  is  a  tariff,  then,  on  your  own  machinery,  you  say? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  presume  there  is. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  for  that  reason  it  costs  you  more  to  run  your  busi- 
ness? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  costs  us  more  for  our  plant. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  you  want  this  committee,  in  arranging  the  tariff, 
to  allow  you  a  duty  that  will  equalize  that  charge  which  is  made  upon 
you  by  the  tariff  on  the  article  you  use  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  As  I  said  before,  I  do  not  know  whether  that 
would  make  much  difference,  or  whether  there  is  any  duty  on  the 
machinery  or  not. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  you  do  state  it  in  here  as  a  fact 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  (interposing) .  That  it  costs  us  more. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  your  reason  in  doing  that  was  to  call  it  to  our 
attention. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  we  reduce  the  tariff  on  the  articles  that  you  buy 
you  could  stand  a  little  reduction  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Reduce  what  article?     On  machinery? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  mean  the  product  of  your  plant. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  On  machinery? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  import  about  $6,000,000;  about  what  per  cent 
comes  from  Germany  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Of  those  intermediate  products  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  This  product  that  you  are  speaking  of;  your  product. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  finished  product  ? 


152  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes;  the  coal-tar  dyes. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  presume  over  80  per  cent  of  that  comes  from 
Germany. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Where  does  the  other  20  per  cent  come  from  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Quite  a  little  comes  from  Switzerland  and  a 
little  from  England  and  France. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  further  you  wish  to  say? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks  to  show  the 
difference  between  the  30  per  cent  duty  away  back  in  1883  and  now. 
Our  colors  in  1883  sold  for  about  five  times  what  they  are  selling  for 
to-day,  so  that  a  color  that  sold  for  a  dollar,  with  a  30  per  cent  duty, 
would  mean  a  protection  of  30  cents.  If  that  same  color  were  selling 
to-day  for  20  cents  our  protection  would  be  only  6  cents. 

Mr.  HILL.  Has  that  been  caused  by  American  competition  or  by 
competition  between  foreign  establishments  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Both  by  competition  and  by  lowering  the  cost 
of  the  raw  materials. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  high  price  was  correspondingly  high  in  foreign 
countries,  too,  at  that  time? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  it  is  correspondingly  low  now? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  that  we  actually 
had  a  protection  then  of  30  cents  a  pound.  Now,  30  cents  a  pound 
is  a  lot  more  than  6  cents  a  pound,  because  the  other  charges  are 
about  the  same  to-day,  if  not  higher,  than  they  were  then,  such  as 
our  labor,  replacements,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  one  man  produces  three  or  four  times  more 
now,  by  unproved  machinery  and  methods,  than  he  did  then. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  applies  to  the  other  side  as  well  as  to  this 
side. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know  that. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Take  our  raw  material,  for  instance.  The  bill 
puts  10  per  cent  on  the  raw  material.  That  is  6  cents  a  pound.  So 
that  we  have  a  net  protection  there  of  24  cents.  That  is  reduced  now 
to  about — 60  per  cent  of  20  cents  would  amount  to  12,  and  10  per 
cent  of  that  would  be  1.2,  so  that  we  have  a  net  protection  now  of 
only  about  4^  cents.  That  is  entirely  inadequate.  This  is  further 
cut  by  the  import  charges  on  the  present  cheap  raw  material,  which 
amount  to  another  10  per  cent,  which  charges  on  the  same  article  in  1880 
amounted  to  only  about  2  per  cent.  So  that  in  those  days  we  actually 
paid  when  importing  the  raw  material  carrying  a  10  per  cent  import 
duty  about,  say,  12  per  cent.  Now  we  are  paying  about  20  per  cent, 
because  we  pay  10  per  cent  duty  and  10  per  cent  more  for  charges. 

The  CHAIRMAN,  if  we  equalized  the  difference  in  cost,  in  labor 
cost  and  other  costs,  between  you  and  your  foreign  competitors, 
would  you  be  satisfied? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  that  does  not  make  all  the  difference  in 
cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  say,  if  we  equalized  the  difference  in  labor  cost 
and  other  costs,  would  you  be  satisfied  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes;  we  would  be  perfectly  satisfied  if  you 
equalized  the  difference  in  cost  of  producing  those  goods  here  and 


SCHEDULE   A.  153 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

on  the  other  side.  That  is  all  we  ask  for.  Even  then,  we  would 
not  realize  that  difference. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  seem  to  be  laboring  under 
the  delusion  that  the  only  difference  in  cost  is  the  difference  in  cost 
of  labor.  In  the  brief  you  presented  four  years  ago,  you  presented 
what  was  called  Schedule  D,  in  which  you  set  out  in  detail  the  differ- 
ence in  cost  here  and  in  Germany,  in  labor  and  everything  else. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Including  capital,  interest  on  capital,  depreciation, 
taxes,  insurance,  and  every  other  element  that  goes  into  it,  as  well 
as  the  difference  in  cost  of  material.  Then  you  make  this  statement: 

By  referring  to  Table  D,  it  appears  that  taking  the  cost  of  colors  in  Germany  at 
100  per  cent,  the  same  colors  cost  to  produce  in  America,  under  the  present  tariff,  144.1 
per  cent,  and  in  case  all  coal-tar  preparations  should  be  admitted  free  the  cost  would 
still  be  over  134.4  per  cent.  That  our  figures  are  correct  is  positively  proven  by  two 
highly  significant  facts:  First.  These  same  colors  are  now  being  imported  from  Ger- 
many and  sold  in  this  market  for  less  than  it  costs  us  to  produce  them,  even  omitting 
charges  for  depreciation  and  interest  on  investments. 

That  included,  of  course,  the  duty  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  item  included  the  duty? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  that  fact  true  to-day? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  is. 

Mr.  PAYNE  (reading) : 

Second.  By  the  fact  that  German  manufacturers  do  not  manufacture  in  the  United 
States,  because,  as  people  high  in  authority  state  openly,  they  can  manufacture  the 
colors  in  Germany  and  lay  them  down  in  the  United  States,  with  duty  of  30  per  cent 
and  manufacturer's  profit  added,  at  a  lower  price  than  they  could  manufacture  the 
same  colors  in  America. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  so. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  that  true  to-day? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  So  that  the  difference  is  not  simply  the  element  of 
labor;  and  when  these  gentlemen  simply  say  the  percentage  is  equal 
to  that,  they  do  not  grasp  the  question.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  in  1909  and  1897  Ger- 
many was  making  this  stuff,  shipping  it  here,  paying  the  tariff,  and 
selling  it  cheaper  than  you  people  could  produce  it,  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  did  not  increase  the  tariff  at  all,  but  allowed  it  to 
remain  just  the  same. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  You  did  increase  it.  It  was  increased  hi  the 
House  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Thirty  per  cent;  they  are  paying  that. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  Payne  bill  was  35  per  cent,  and  it  was 
reduced  in  the  Senate,  but  it  also  put  raw  materials  on  the  free  list. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  am  talking  about  the  act  as  it  passed,  because  it 
could  not  have  passed  unless  my  Brother  Payne  had  consented  to 
it,  you  know.  So  you  had  the  same  tariff  in  1897  and  the  same 
tariff  in  1909.  And  you  had  a  losing  business  just  because  they 
were  bringing  it  here— paying  the  tariff,  and  selling  it  to  our  people 
cheaper  than  you  could  produce  it — and  you  have  been  losing  ever 
since. 


154  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Oh,  no;  I  am  not  saying  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  the  hope  that  somebody  would  come  along  and 
raise  it  for  you  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  am  not  saying  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know  you  did  not  intend  to  say  it,  but  he  made 
you  say  it. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  am  saying  that  we  are  not  making  5  per 
cent  on  our  investment,  not  taking  anything  off  for  depreciation. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know  you  did  not  mean  to  say  it,  but  Mr.  Payne 
got  you  to  say  it. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  We  are  really 
losing  money,  because  if  we  take  off  10  per  cent  for  depreciation,  as 
we  should  do  and  as  they  do  on  the  other  side,  then  we  would  be 
money  out  of  pocket. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  you  are  really  complaining  against  the  Dingley 
and  Payne  bills  because  you  have  been  losing  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  asking  now 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Because  you  have  lost  ever  since? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  are  willing  .to  have  you  appoint  a  committee 
of  your  own  members,  if  you  wish,  and  we  will  pay  all  the  expenses  of 
coming  up  to  Buffalo  and  looking  over  our  business  and  seeing  what 
we  are  doing.  Then  we  will  abide  by  your  decision. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Of  course,  if  you  are  losing  money  and  have  been 
losing  money  since  the  Dingley  Act,  from  a  manufacturer's  or  mer- 
chant's standpoint,  you  would  be  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  law  re- 
maining as  it  is,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No;  we  are  not  satisfied. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  would  like  to  have  it  increased  somewhat, 
would  you  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  think  we  are  entitled  to  an  increase,  but  we 
are  perfectly  willing  to  leave  it  to  you  to  settle  after  investigation. 
Xow,  another  thing.  Assuming  that  we  had  adequate  protection — 
that  is,  the  difference  between  the  foreign  cost  and  the  domestic 
cost — then  we  could  not  realize  the  entire  difference  in  cost.  If  the 
difference  is  35  per  cent,  we  can  not  get  35  per  cent  more  here  for  our 
goods  than  they  get  on  the  other  side,  because  we  must  cut  that  price 
at  least  10  per  cent  in  order  to  get  the  bulk  of  trade.  There  are  20 
importers  here  competing  with  us.  We  can  only  get  our  share  of  the 
trade  unless  we  cut  the  price,  because  our  good  American  consumers 
of  aniline  dyes,  when  we  offer  them  American-made  colors,  the  first 
question  asked  is, ' '  What  inducement  can  you  offer  ?"  We  are  obliged 
to  offer  an  inducement.  We  must  cut  the  price  10  per  cent  below  the 
import  price  before  we  can  get  any  more  than  a  fair  share  of  the 
business. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  has  the  industry  increased  since  1909  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  has  not  increased,  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  mean  the  industry,  the  business. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  know  that  it  has  increased  at  all.  I 
do  not  believe  our  sales  are  more  now  than  they  were  then. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  know,  but  how  about  the  industry  in  the  United 
States  ? 


SCHEDULE   A.  155 

PABAGBAPH  16— COAL-TAB  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Our  volume  of  manufactures  has  increased, 
but  the  value  has  not  increased.  In  other  words,  we  are  making  less 
money  to-day  than  before  the  enactment  of  the  Payne  bill.  In 
other  words,  we  are  losing  more  through  lower  prices  of  our  colors 
than  we  are  saving  on  the  duty  on  those  raw  materials. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  more  capital  is  invested  to-day  in  your 
industry,  not  your  private  business,  but  in  the  industry  in  the  United 
States,  than  there  was  in  1909? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  can  not  speak  for  other  manufacturers. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Has  it  not  more  than  doubled  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  sir;  oh,  no. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  has  not  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Oh,  no.  I  doubt  whether  it  has  increased  at 
all.  Our  industry  has  not  increased  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  has  been  one  of  the  industries  that  has  not  pros- 
pered under  the  Dingley  and  Payne  Acts  ?, 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Is  yours  an  industry  that  could  profitably  be 
carried  on  in  this  country  without  some  bonus  in  the  way  of  a  tariff? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  look  upon  it  as  a  bonus.  All  we  are 
asking  for  is  an  equalization  of  cost.  We  can  not  pay  our  men  $2 
where  they  pay  their  men  90  cents,  and  produce  these  colors  at  the 
same  price. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  live  out  in  Missouri,  in  the  central  part  of  the 
country,  and  in  the  hot-houses  we  grow  lemons  and  figs.  It  is  not 
profitable  unless  we  can  shut  out  other  markets,  so  as  to  give  us  some 
artificial  stimulus,  to  enable  us  to  successfully  grow  figs.  What  I 
mean  is  this :  Is  yours  a  business  in  and  of  itself  profitable  without  it 
gets  some  favors  extended  to  it  by  law  ?  I  speak  of  yours  individually, 
by  itself.  I  am  not  referring  to  the  lemon  and  fig  business  especially, 
but  this  particular  coal-tar  dye  business.  Can  it  be  successfully 
carried  on  in  this  country  without  some  sort  of  stimulus  being  given 
to  it  in  the  way  of  a  tax  in  its  behalf  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  have  not  had  any  stimulus. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  You  have  not  had  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  will  say  we  can  not  manufacture  hi  this  coun- 
try under  free  trade  and  pay  the  same  wages  we  are  paying  now. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  That  in  and  of  itself  it  is  not  a  prosperous  busi- 
ness in  this  country  ?  Is  that  what  you  mean  to  say  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  can  not  be  prosperous. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  And  it  can  only  be  made  prosperous  by  levying 
a  tax  on  the  people  who  consume  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No.  It  can  be  made  prosperous  if  the  differ- 
ence in  cost  is  equalized.  If  you  take  the  duty  off  of  colors  altogether, 
the  ultimate  consumer  will  not  profit  one  iota. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  That  is  a  question  of  argument. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  so.  Here  is  a  dye  [indicatingl,  if  you 
reduce  the  duty  5  per  cent  on  the  dye  (which  is  a  heavy  shade),  it 
will  make  a  difference  of  just  two-twenty-fifths  of  a  cent  a  yard,  and 
it  sells  for  $1.50  a  yard. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  We  differ  as  to  who  the  ultimate  consumer  is. 
The  ultimate  consumer  in  your  case  is  the  manufacturer  who  buys 
your  dyestuffs? 


156  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  ultimate  consumer  is  you  and  all  the  rest 
of  us  who  wear  clothes. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Then  we  look  at  it  from  a  different  standpoint. 
The  ultimate  consumer  is  the  person  to  whom  you  sell.  What  I 
I  want  to  know  is,  whether  or  not  your  business  of  manufacturing 
dyes  in  this  country  is  in  and  of  itself  a  prosperous  business,  in  that 
it  is  profitable  to  engage  American  labor  and  capital — there  being, 
as  you  know,  a  shortage  in  both  capital  and  labor  in  this  country. 
We  have  prosperous  industries  in  this  country  that  do  not  have 
either  enough  capital  or  enough  labor.  Do  you  think  it  is  wise  to 
turn  capital  and  labor  from  prosperous  enterprises  and  put  them 
into  unprofitable  industries,  which  can  exist  only  by  levying  a  tax  in 
their  favor,  upon  the  people  who  consume  it  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  If  you  carry  that  principle  through  absolutely, 
we  would  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  am  not  talking  about  a  principle. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  If  you  take  the  duty  off  everything  that  needs 
protection,  then  we  probably  will  be  able  to  get  labor  at  half  price. 
We  are  one  of  many  industries  that  need  protection. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  term,  "need 
protection"  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  need  enough  protection,  enough  duty,  to 
equalize  the  difference  in  cost  here  and  abroad,  thus  giving  us  a 
chance  to  compete. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  What  you  mean  is  that  the  industry  will  not 
sustain  itself  unless  it  is  propped  up  by  a  tax  upon  the  consumer,  to 
make  it  go? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Put  it  that  way  if  you  like,  although  there  is  a 
great  deal  more  to  it  than  that. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Now,  is  it  profitable  to  invest  American  capital 
and  labor  in  that  industry,  if  there  is  a  well-known  shortage  in  capital 
and  labor  to  carry  on  the  industries  of  this  country,  which  are  profit- 
able in  and  of  themselves  ?  You  do  not  pay  your  labor  now  as  much 
as  we  pay  carpenters,  bricklayers,  stonemasons,  and  farm  hands  in 
our  country. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Of  course,  the  present  time  is  exceptional 
anyway,  because  there  are  a  great  many  times  when  labor  is  not  as 
scarce  as  it  is  now.  but  the  competition  which  it  creates  is  surely 
for  the  benefit  of  all  our  citizens,  who  thereby  get  their  goods  cheaper. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  But  is  not  your  labor  lower  paid  than  the 
unprotected  labor  of  this  country  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Possibly  that  is  so.  That  is  simply  because  we 
can  not  compete  with  the  people  on  the  other  side  and  Day  more 
wages.  We  pay  as  much  as  we  can.  But  an  unprotected  industry, 
such  as  those  you  mention,  those  goods  would  not  be  imported  any- 
way. You  can  not  import  a  house  or  a  road. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  There  is  such  a  shortage  of  those  profitable 
enterprises  that  it  would  be  better,  would  it  not,  for  us  to  invest  our 
capital  and  employ  our  labor  in  American  industries  that  are  profit- 
able within  themselves,  rather  than  to  put  exorbitant  taxes  on  the 
consumer  in  order  to  sustain — 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF  (interposing).  I  do  not  think  so.  You  might  be 
able  to  get  more  labor  for  what  you  call  the  unprotected  industries, 


SCHEDULE  A.  157 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

but  I  think  if  you  took  the  duty  off  all  the  industries  that  do  need 
and  now  have  protection  you  would  have  labor  down  pretty  low  and 
men  walking  the  streets  looking  for  work.  I  will  say  now  that  if  we 
can  be  put  on  the  same  basis  as  the  Germans,  if  we  can  get  our  labor 
at  the  same  price  as  the  Germans,  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  have  no 
duty  at  all.  If  you  want  absolute  free  trade,  we  are  satisfied.  But 
under  present  conditions  we  must  have  that  protection,  because  we 
have  to  pay  double  for  our  labor  and  have  to  pay  a  good  deal  more 
for  other  things  that  make  up  the  cost  of  our  goods.  Anyway,  we 
are  not  asking  exorbitant  taxes,  because  under  the  present  tax,  which 
we  ask  to  be  left  as  it  is,  over  80  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption  in 
the  United  States  is  imported.  If  we  have  absolute  free  trade  and 
take  the  tariff  off  of  everything  and  put  it  on  coffee,  tea,  whisky,  and 
do  as  the  English  do,  then  we  will  be  perfectly  satisfied.  Then 
things  will  equalize  themselves. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  One  other  question:  Is  the  raw  material  of 
which  these  dyes  are  manufactured  more  available  to  other  countries 
than  to  us  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  think  it  is  more  available  here. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  It  is  more  available  here? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  But  it  must  come  from  foreign  sources  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Well,  it  comes  from  foreign  sources,  because  it 
is  not  made  here  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Could  it  be  made  here? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  could  be  made  here;  certainly. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  were  speaking  a  moment  ago  about  the 
price  to  the  ultimate  consumer  if  these  raw  materials  were  put  on  the 
free  list.  Do  you  think  that  if  the  German  manufacturers  were  no 
longer  forced  to  compete  with  American  manufacturers  it  would 
lower  the  price  to  the  American  consumer  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  You  do  not  think  it  would  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  I  do  not  think  so;  no. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  know  whether  the  German  Government  itself  is 
interested  in  these  syndicates,  or  any  of  them,  and  which  it  has  legal- 
ized, as  it  is  interested  in  the  phosphate  syndicate  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Not  to  my  knowledge  in  anilines. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  have  no  reason  to  suppose  they  are  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  the  committee  are  through,  I  would  like  to  have 
you  complete  your  statement. 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPP.  There  is  one  aniline  plant  in  this  country  that 
is  controlled  by  a  German  plant,  and  that  is  the  only  plant  that  has 
not  increased  its  line  of  colors  since  they  obtained  control.  In  other 
words,  they  find  they  can  import  the  colors  cheaper  under  the  present 
rate  than  they  can  manufacture  them  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  name  of  that  concern  ? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  Hudson  River  Aniline  Color  Works,  con- 
trolled by  Farbenfabriken,  of  Elberfeld.  They  have  increased  their 
production  of  pharmaceutical  products,  but  have  not  increased  the 


158  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

production  of  their  line  of  aniline  colors.  Up  to  1896  we  lost  money 
steadily;  we  absolutely  lost  money.  From  then  on  we  were  able  to 
increase  our  production  materially,  owing  to  expiring  foreign  patents 
and  to  the  working  of  our  own  patents,  and  to  the  placing  on  the  reef 
list  in  1897  of  additional  raw  materials.  We  were  never,  however, 
able  to  earn  as  much  as  6  per  cent  on  our  coal-tar  dyes,  even  without 
writing  off  anything  on  machinery  and  plant.  Our  books  are  open 
to  the  inspection  of  your  committee  or  any  authorized  representative 
at  any  time.  We  have  been  working  on  a  declining  market  for  over 
30  years,  or  ever  since  we  have  been  in  business,  and  the  process  is 
still  going  on.  As  I  said  before,  our  colors  have  gone  down  in  price 
to  such  an  extent,  since  the  Payne  bill  was  passed,  that  we  make  less 
on  our  colors  than  we  save  on  the  raw  materials  coming  in  free.  So 
that  shows  that  competition  does  something. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOSEPH  F.  O'CONNELL,  ON  BEHALF  OF 
SCHOELLKOPF,  HARTFORD  &  HANNA  CO. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  Gentlemen,  I  have  only  a  few  observations  to 
make,  because  I  believe  that  when  Mr.  Schoellkopf's  testimony  is 
read  it  will  clear  up  very  many  things  of  which  the  committee  were 
in  the  dark. 

I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  particularly  to  sections  21  and 
24  of  the  proposed  bill.  Section  21  calls  for  a  cut  of  from  30  to  25 
per  cent  on  the  coal  tar  dyes  or  colors  that  are  manufactured  in  this 
country. 

Now,  if  I  understand  it,  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  committee  in 
revising  this  chemical  schedule  was  to  raise  revenue  primarily, 
having  proper  regard  for  the  interests  of  the  consumer. 

It  seems  to  me  the  committee  have  made  a  mistake  in  this  matter, 
and  we  respectfully  call  the  committee's  attention  to  these  particular 
sections,  with  the  desire  that  they  may  go  into  it  very  carefully. 
There  is  consumed  in  this  country  only  seven  and  one-half  million 
dollars  worth  of  coal  tar  products.  Of  that,  80  per  cent  comes  from 
abroad.  That  80  per  cent  equals  $6,000,000.  There  are  $6,000,000 
in  value  imported,  which  pay  in  revenue  to  this  Government 
SI, 800, 000 — surely  not  a  prohibitive  tariff.  This  proposed  cut  will 
make  a  difference  in  the  revenue  of  $300,000.  Now,  as  against  that, 
you  seek  to  put  on,  in  section  24,  a  10  per  cent  duty  on  articles  that 
are  now  on  the  free  list,  and  from  those  articles  that  are  now  on  the 
free  list  you  estimate  that  you  are  going  to  get  $100,000. 

Taking  into  consideration  article  22,  which  is  also  allied  with  it, 
which  shows  a  loss  in  that  section  of  $25,000,  which,  added  to  the 
$300,000,  makes  a  total  of  $325,000,  as  total  loss  in  revenue  by  the 
proposed  changes.  In  other  words,  you  are  losing  approximately 
$325,000  on  the  manufactured  articles,  and  you  are  imposing  $100,000 
on  the  raw  materials,  a  net  loss  of  revenue  of  $225,000. 

Now,  we  submit  that  the  committee  are  not  accomplishing  their 
purpose  in  doing  this,  and  in  addition  are  doing  two  things  that 
I  am  sure  they  never  intended  to  do,  namely,  crippling  an  American 
industry  and  adding  to  the  burden  of  the  American  consumer.  The 
American  consumer  is  burdened  whenever  you  tax  raw  materials. 


SCHEDULE   A.  159 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

As  a  Democrat,  I  think  I  am  justified  in  protesting  against  the 
policy  of  taking  raw  materials  from  free  list  and  taxing  them. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  One  moment,  if  you  please,  Mr.  O'Connell:  Is  it 
not  true  that,  if  a  reduction  is  made  in  the  duty  upon  the  finished 
product,  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  the  American 
manufacturer  to  hand  on  that  tax  on  the  materials  that  are  manu- 
factured to  the  consumer?  In  other  words,  it  would  be  difficult  for 
him  to  increase  the  price  to  the  consumer  if  the  duty  is  lowered  upon 
his  finished  product? 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  know  that  I  grasp  your  intent  exactly, 
but  do  I  gather  from  your  statement 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  can  the  manufacturer  of  coal-tar  dyes  or 
colors  increase  the  price  to  the  consumer  of  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors 
if  his  duty  is  reduced  upon  his  finished  product  ?  He  can  not  hand 
down  to  the  persons  who  buy  from  him  the  duty  which  we  impose  upon 
his  materials  of  manufacture,  because  the  competition  from  abroad 
will  increase. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  No;  the  competition  from  abroad  would  wipe  out 
the  competition  here,  and  then  the  competition  from  abroad  would 
be  able  to  do  what  it  pleased  and  surely  raise  the  prices  to  the  con- 
sumer. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  That  is  just  an  assumption;  that  is  a  different 
matter. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  think  it  is  an  assumption;  it  is  a  well 
known  and  accepted  fact  in  the  «oal-tar  industry.  In  the  first  place, 
only  seven  and  a  half  million  dollars  worth  of  products  are  used, 
and  if  you  lower  the  tariff  it  is  not  going  to  increase  the  consumption. 
For  instance,  the  dye  that  is  in  my  coat  or  necktie  will  not  be  increased 
because  the  duty  on  the  dye  is  going  to  be  lowered  or  is  going  to  be 
raised. 

Now,  you  say  you  expect  to  gain  $1,000,000  in  products  coming  in 
under  section  24.  If  you  increase  that  a  million  dollars,  it  merely 
means  that  you  are  taking  away  from  the  American  manufacturer 
the  opportunity  to  make  $1,000,000  worth  of  goods  which  he  now 
makes,  and  you  are  cutting  that  American  industry  absolutely  in 
two.  Thus  you  are  increasing  the  output  of  foreign  manufacturers 
and  retarding  and  taking  away  our  market  to  the  extent  that  the 
American  manufacturer  will  only  supply  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the 
whole  amount  of  coal-tar  colors  whicn  are  consumed. 

That  points  out  in  another  way  the  difficulty  that  I  think  the  com- 
mittee overlooked  in  framing  this  bill. 

Now,  I  submit  as  a  Democrat  that  it  is  very  poor  policy  to  put  any 
raw  materials  needed  for  manufacturing  in  this  country  on  the  duti- 
able list.  I  think  there  are  very  many  eminent  authorities  who  have 
protested  most  strongly  against  such  a  policy. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  suppose  what  you  mean  by  raw  materials  are 
those  materials  not  produced  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  agree  with  you,  too. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  When  Mr.  Cleveland  was  President,  in  his  message 
he  protested  against  it  most  strongly.  Let  me  quote  what  he  said 


160  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wilson  denouncing  the  Senate  for  its  action  at  that 
time. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Let  me  interrupt  you.  Maybe  I  misunderstood 
you,  but  Mr.  Cleveland  did  not  make  the  difference  or  distinction  that 
my  friend  from  Ohio  makes.  Mr.  Longworth,  in  referring  to  raw 
materials,  refers  to  only  those  articles  that  are  not  produced  in  this 
country.  Mr.  Cleveland  made  no  such  distinction. 

Mr.  O'CoxNELL.  I  am  sure  President  Cleveland  intended,  by  raw 
materials,  all  those  materials  that  are  necessary  for  our  factories  to 
use  which  they  make  into  the  finished  product.  Coal-tar  products 
which  are  to  be  made  into  colors  are  as  much  raw  materials  as  iron 
ore  or  wool,  which  are  to  be  finished  into  other  forms. 

Mr.  Cleveland  was  very  emphatic.     He  said: 

One  topic  will  be  submitted  to  the  conference  which  embodies  Democratic  prin- 
ciples so  directly  that  it  can  not  be  compromised.  We  have  in  our  platforms  and 
in  every  way  possible  declared  in  favor  of  the  free  importation  of  raw  materials.  We 
have  again  and  again  promised  that  this  should  be  accorded  to  our  people  and  our 
manufacturers  as  soon  as  the  Democratic  Party  was  invested  with  the  power  to  deter- 
mine the  tariff  policy  of  the  country. 

The  party  now  has  that  power.  We  are  as  certain  to-day  as  we  have  ever  been  of 
the  great  benefit  that  would  accrue  to  the  country  from  the  inauguration  of  this  policy, 
and  nothing  has  occurred  to  release  us  from  our  obligation  to  secure  this  advantage  to 
our  people. 

Mr.  William  Jennings  Bryan,  in  the  Fifty-third  Congress,  took  the 
same  attitude.  Speaking  about  free  raw  materials  at  that  time,  he 
said: 

They  tell  us  that  free  coal  can  not  benefit  the  interior.  Take  the  tariff  off  from  coal 
so  that  the  New  England  manufacturers  can  buy  it  for  less,  and  they  can  manufacture 
more  cheaply,  and  then  by  cutting  down  the  tariff  on  the  products  of  their  factories 
we  can  compel  them  to  sell  at  a  lower  price  to  the  people  of  the  South  and  West.  That 
is  the  reason  our  folks  are  interested  in  free  coal.  So  long  as  we  lay  burdens  upon 
what  the  manufacturers  use  they  can  with  some  justification  ask  a  tariff  on  the  product 
of  their  looms. 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  first  place,  I  believe  we  can  make  no  permanent  progress  in 
the  direction  of  tariff  reform  until  we  free  from  taxation  the  raw  materials  which  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  our  industries. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Mr.  O'Connell,  you  are  very  familiar,  of  course, 
with  our  tariff  history  and  you  know  that  the  class  of  raw  materials 
as  used  at  that  time  was  specially  defined  or  referred  to  as  the  crude 
products  in  the  soil,  and  then  they  have  been  advanced  in  the  process 
of  manufacture.  That  surely  does  not  apply  to  any  of  these  inter- 
mediate coal-tar  products,  which  are  the  result  of  high  systems  of 
manufacture. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  I  believe  that  the  same  distinction  would  have 
been  made  then  as  is  made  now  if  it  had  been  brought  out  along  the 
same  lines  that  you  now  refer  to.  When  60  per  cent  of  the  value  of 
the  products  consumed  by  an  industry  are  imported  from  abroad, 
those  certainly  ought  to  be  considered  raw  materials,  particularly 
when  they  are  not  found  here  in  this  country.  They  are  basic  raw 
materials,  so  far  as  our  manufacture  is  concerned,  and  are  so  specified 
in  the  coal-tar  industry. 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  committee  ought  to  bear 
in  mind  that  it  is  necessary  for  our  textile  manufactures  that  this 
industry  should  be  kept  in  this  country.  It  serves  as  a  restraint 
upon  the  German  syndicates,  cartels,  and  combinations  that  are 


SCHEDULE  A.  161 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

raising  prices  ad  libitum  whenever  there  is  no  competition.  If  we 
have  no  competition  in  this  country  the  foreign  makers  will  surely 
and  quickly  raise  the  prices  of  their  articles. 

Our  factories  at  Buffalo  are  engaged  in  a  work  that  ought  to  receive 
your  heartiest  aid.  They  are  engaged  in  an  enterprise  which  can  be 
made  one  of  the  greatest  enterprises  in  this  country. 

The  great  industrial  development  of  Germany  has  centered  around 
her  chemical  industry,  and  the  most  marvelous  part  of  her  chemical 
industry  has  been  along  the  lines  of  the  coal-tar  industry.  Their 
products  and  profits  have  been  enormous.  The  profits,  according  to 
your  own  glossary,  which  you  have  published,  have  been  from  24  to  25 
per  cent.  We  barely  survive  under  present  conditions,  as  our  books 
will  disclose  if  you  care  to  investigate.  Those  people  are  now  able  to 
come  into  this  country,  and  even  with  the  competition  which  we 
have  in  this  country  and  the  30  per  cent  that  is  now  on  it,  they  are 
able  to  lay  down  the  goods  here  and  sell  them  cheaper  than  houses 
in  this  country  are  able  to  do.  The  Germans  have  gone  into  this 
matter  very  carefully  and  very  minutely  and  are  giving  it  their 
closest  attention  and  encouragement. 

The  various  changes  that  the  coal-tar  industry  has  suffered  during 
the  variations  of  the  tariff  might  be  brought  closely  home  to  you 
when  I  say  this:  That  the  price  of  coal-tar  colors  was  immediately 
lowered  after  the  passage  of  the  last  tariff  act  when  these  articles 
were  put  upon  the  free  list  that  you  now  seek  to  put  back  on  the 
dutiable  list.  If  you  put  these  articles  back  on  the  dutiable  list,  as 
you  now  contemplate  under  section  24,  the  cost  of  production  of 
coal-tar  colors  will  necessarily  rise  and  the  American  manufacturer 
will  suffer  accordingly.  It  may  occur  to  some  that  the  putting  of 
this  10  per  cent  will  help  the  consumer,  but  I  would  like  to  refer  you 
to  page  162  of  the  tariff  hearings  held  before  the  Finance  Committee 
of  the  United  States  Senate  last  year  on  this  bill,  and  will  quote  to 
you  a  letter  from  one  of  the  German  houses  to  the  effect  that  when- 
ever contracts  are  made  this  clause  is  put  in: 

In  case  any  duty  should  be  charged  on  any  merchandise  sold  under  this  contract 
or  in  case  of  any  change  in  said  duty  the  buyer  to  pay  or  receive  in  dutiable  funds 
any  difference  from  the  present  rates,  the  buyer  to  pay  any  additional  duty  caused 
by  advance  in  the  market  value. 

In  other  words,  the  consumer  must  bear  this  burden.  You  do  not 
improve  the  situation,  and  you  do  not  increase  the  revenue,  by 
lowering  the  tariff  from  30  to  25  per  cent  on  the  finished  articles,  and 
putting  10  per  cent  on  the  raw  materials. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Mr.  O'Connell,  will  you  let  me  ask  you  a  question 
right  there? 

Mr.  O'CoxxELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Suppose,  as  you  contend,  the  passage  of  this 
legislation  will  destroy  this  industry  here,  in  this  country,  do  you 
think  that  would  result  in  lowering  the  price  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  Absolutely  not.  It  would  result  in  an  immediate 
rise  in  the  prices  to  the  consumer. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  welcome  you  to  my  school  of  political  thought. 

Mr.  O'CoxxELL.  I  think  everybody  will  agree  to  that.  Mr. 
Harrison  and  Mi-.  Underwood  will  absolutely  agree  with  this  position 
after  they  have  considered  the  matter  a  little  more  fully. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 11 


162  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Are  you  advocating  a  tariff  for  protection  to  this 
industry,  or  are  you  advocating  it  for  revenue? 

Mr.  O'CoNNELL.  I  am  advocating  a  tariff  for  revenue  along  Demo- 
cratic lines  and  that  is  a  tariff  that  permits  competition.  I  think 
you  and  I  both  agree  on  that,  Mr.  James. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  agree  with  you  as  to  a  tariff  for  revenue.  I  do  not 
know  of  any  Democrat  that  approves  of  a  tariff  for  protection. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  I  am  not  asking  for  a  tariff  for  protection.  We 
are  asking  for  a  tariff  in  order  to  allow  us  to  compete  for  the  benefit 
of  the  American  consumer. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  merely  made  the  remark,  or  asked  the  question, 
rather,  to  see  whether  my  friend  Mr.  Longworth  was  right  when  he 
welcomed  you  to  his  political  school.  I  do  not  want  to  lose  any 
Democratic  followers  here. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  Well,  I  rather  think  we  will  be  welcoming  Mr. 
Longworth  to  our  school  before  we  finish. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  As  enunciated  by  yourself,  not  by  Senator 
James. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  Well,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  wish  you  would  clear  up  the  Democratic  policy  on 
this  question,  Mr.  O'Connell. 

Mr.  O'CONNELL.  I  will  leave  that  to  those  who  are  better  qualified, 
Mr.  Payne. 

Mr.  JAMES.  We  will  attend  to  that  when  we  come  to  make  the  bill. 

Mr.  O'Connell,  at  a  later  date,  submitted  the  following  brief  on 
behalf  of  Schoellkopf,  Hartford  &  Hanna  Co.: 

DECEMBER  26,  1911. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  MR.  CHAIRMAN:  In  accordance  with  your  suggestion  that  a  brief  be  filed  in 
reference  to  article  15,  schedule  1,  viz,  that  referring  to  "coal-tar  dyes  or  colors, 
not  specially  provided  for,  on  which  there  is  imposed  a  thirty  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
and  all  other  products  or  preparations  of  coal  tar  not  colors  or  dyes,  and  not  medicinals, 
not  specially  provided  for,  of  fifteen  per  cent  ad  valorem, "  let  me  say  that  I  am 
firmly  of  the  belief  that  this  section  should  not  be  in  any  way  changed.  The  duty 
is  hardly  a  sufficient  one. 

German  manufacturers  control  practically  the  whole  output  and  are  able  to  compete 
in  our  market  to-day,  and  very  frequently  can  undersell  us. 

In  the  last  year  there  was  over  ,%. 000,000  worth  of  coal  tar  imported  under  this 
section,  giving  a  revenue  of  $1, 700, 000. 

There  can  be  only  two  possible  reasons  assigned  for  a  change  in  this  schedule,  viz, 
first,  that  a  reduction  of  the  rate  of  the  tariff  might  lower  the  price  of  the  imported 
coal-tar  products  in  this  country,  and,  second,  that  the  cost  of  coal-tar  products  in 
the  form  of  aniline  colors  and  dyes  would  be  cheaper  to  the  manufacturers  that  use 
these  colors. 

Inasmuch  as  it,  will  be  practically  impossible  for  American  manufacturers  to  com- 
pete against  German  manufacturers,  if  this  rate  is  cut,  we  can  safely  assure  your 
committee  that  a  cut  of  the  present  '.*>()  per  cent  only  means  that  the  aniline  dye 
manufacturers  in  this  country  must  close  their  doors.  The  consequence  of  this  is 
apparent,  viz.  there  will  be  no  competition  in  this  country  against  the  German 
color  makers,  thus  affording  them  a  monopoly.  Their  first  step  in  this  case  will 
lie  to  raise  the  price  of  coal-tar  products,  and  the  same  situation  will  arise  as  was 
found  in  iho  case  of  the  ali/arin  color.-;  which  were  put  upon  the  free  list  »  the 
Dingley  bill  and  the  prices  immediately  raised.  Thus  it  is  quickly  seen  that  the  very 
objects  which  arc  soutrht  for  in  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  will  be  quickly  and  effectually 
defeated.  It  will  establish  a  monopoly  which  can  not  in  any  way  be  combated 


SCHEDULE  A.  163 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

or  opposed,  and  the  American  manufacturer  will  be  hopelessly  at  the  mercy  of  the 
German  manufacturers. 

This  industry  in  this  country  is  composed  principally  of  four  different  manufacturers. 
Their  total  production  is  about  20  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption  of  these  dyes  in 
the  United  States.  This  certainly  is  a  large  enough  percentage  to  constitute  an  actual 
industry  here. 

This  percentage  is  arrived  at  by  taking  the  total  imports  of  aniline  colors  into  the 
United  States  in  any  of  the  last  five  vears  and  comparing  against  them  the  production 
of  the  four  factories,  of  which  a  fairly  accurate  estimate  can  be  made,  resulting  in  a 
finding  that  20  per  cent  of  the  whole  is  manufactured  in  this  country. 

The  chemical  industry  in  the  last  few  years  has  undergone  a  great  impetus,  through 
the  better  conditions  which  have  been  evolved  from  placing  the  raw  products  on  the 
free  list  and  leaving  a  reasonable  tariff  on  the  finished  products.  The  30  per  cent  now 
imposed  represents  a  proper  or  fair  proportion.  It  is  our  firm  belief  that  if  the  situa- 
tion is  left  unchanged  our  industries  will  increase  and  will  become  formidable  com- 
petitors with  the  great  German  manufacturers.  They  certainly  will  be  sufficient  to 
offset  the  monoplies  established  by  the  conventions  and  combinations  formed  by  the 
European  manufacturers  which  cause  the  products  governed  by  these  combinations 
to  actually  cost  the  consumer  more  in  proportion  than  the  protected  colors  on  which 
prices  are  forced  down  to  a  reasonable  basis  through  competition  of  the  American 
manufacturers.  The  consumer  to-day  is  no  better  off  in  reference  to  alizarin  colors, 
aniline  salts,  and  aniline  oil,  which  are  on  the  free  list,  than  if  there  was  an  actual 
duty  on  these  products,  simply  because  the  conventions  and  combinations  have 
placed  a  greater  cost  upon  them. 

The  American  coal-tar  colors  industry  gradually  is  becoming  a  recognized  competitor 
against  the  European  manufacturers,  which  should  be  encouraged. 

The  commercial  world  is  fast  realizing  that  the  tremendous  progress  made  by 
Germany  has  been  due  in  no  small  measure  to  the  splendid  encouragement  of  her 
chemical  industries.  Any  step  taken  by  this  Government  in  discouraging  chemical 
advancement  will  be  a  distinct  retrograde  movement. 

Any  reduction  of  the  present  30  per  cent  duty  will  not  help  the  manufacturers  that 
use  aniline  dyes  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form,  because  the  percentage  of  reduction 
would  never  be  credited  in  the  selling  price,  because  it  would  be  deemed  inconsider- 
able. The  same  situation  will  confront  them  as  has  been  considered  in  the  preceding 
paragraphs,  viz,  that  if  the  German  manufacturers  control  the  output  the  price, 
instead  of  being  lowered,  will  most  certainly  be  raised. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  American  manufacturer,  in  order  to  secure  the 
home  market,  must  be  in  a  position  to  undersell  the  importer.  This  he  can  not  do 
to-day,  and  the  struggle  is  a  very  severe  one  to  maintain  the  industry  even  with  the 
present  rates.  The  foreign  manufacturer  very  often  assumes  part  of  the  duty  him- 
self in  order  to  get  the  American  trade.  The  German  manufacturers  do  not  manufac- 
ture in  the  United  States  because,  as  the  people  high  in  authority  state  openly,  they 
can  manufacture  the  colors  in  Germany  and  lay  them  in  the  United  States  with  the 
duty  of  30  per  cent  and  the  manufacturer's  profit  added  at  a  lower  price  than  they 
could  manufacture  the  same  colors  in  America. 

In  conclusion  I  desire  to  state  that  the  Schoellkopf,  Hartford  &  Hanna  Co.,  which 
is  the  largest  color  industry  in  America,  is  willing  and  anxious  to  submit  its  books  to 
any  member  or  members  of  the  committee  and  to  give  them  the  fullest  information 
possible  in  reference  to  the  actual  condition  of  the  color  industry  in  this  country, 
which  will  verify  and  substantiate  every  statement  made  in  this  letter.  The  money 
invested  at  the  present  time,  which  is  not  watered  in  any  way,  barely  returns  a  small 
dividend.  In  the  last  four  years  it  has  been  less  than  6  per  cent. 

SCHOELLKOPF,  HARTFORD  &  HANNA  Co., 
By  Jos.  F.  O'CoNNELL,  Attorney. 

BRIEF  ON  BEHALF  OF  IMPORTERS  OF  CERTAIN  ALIZARIN  VAT 

DYES. 

The  COMMITTEE  ox  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  your  committee 
certain  inequalities  in  the  treatment,  under  existing  law,  of  various 
anthracin  dyes  belonging  to  the  class  known  as  "fast  vat  dyes," 


164  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

which  inequalities  we  believe  will  be  perpetuated  if  the  language  of 
the  present  tariff  act,  or  of  the  chemical  bill  of  1912  known  as  H.  R. 
20182,  is  adopted  in  new  legislation. 

We  are  importers  of  certain  anthracin  fast  vat  dyes  manufactured 
in  Germany  and  known  as  hydron  blues.  These  dyes  are  produced 
from  carbazol,  which  is  derived  from  commercial  or  crude  anthracin. 
We  have  claimed  the  hydron  blues  to  be  properly  classifiable  under 
paragraph  487  of  the  present  tariff  act  as  "  dyes  derived  from  *  *  * 
anthracin,"  but  such  classification  has  been  denied  by  the  customs 
officials  who  assess  the  dyes  in  question  as  "coal-tar  dyes  or  colors 
not  specially  provided  for  "  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph 
15  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909. 

Litigation  as  to  the  propriety  of  this  assessment  is  now  pending  in 
the  United  States  Court  of  Customs  Appeals,  but,  as  the  law  is  thus 
misconstrued,  we  venture  to  ask  your  committee  to  clear  the  matter 
up  by  the  insertion  of  appropriate  phraseology  when  it  writes  the 
new  tariff  bill. 

The  language  of  the  present  act  reads: 

"Par.  487.  Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial,  and  dyes  derived  from 
alizarin  or  from  anthracin." 

The  language  we  propose  is: 

"Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial,  and  dyes  derived  from  alizarin, 
anthracin,  or  carbazol." 

THE    RELATION    OF   HYDRON    BLUES   TO   ANTHRACIN. 

The  hydron  blues  are  derived  from  anthracin  because  their  origin 
is  traceable  to  the  physical  substance,  commercial  anthracin.  Car- 
bazol, from  which  they  are  directly  made,  is  derived  from  commercial 
anthracin  and  can  not  be  obtained  in  commercial  quantities  from  any 
other  substance.  Up  to  this  time  the  customs  authorities  have  held 
that  the  phrase  "derived  from  anthracin"  does  not  refer  to  the  com- 
mercial product,  but  refers  to  technically  pure  anthracin  having  the 
chemical  formula  C14H10. 

It  is  only  since  the  last  tariff  act  went  into  effect  that  a  commercial 
method  of  separating  carbazol  from  anthracin  has  been  perfected, 
and  the  discovery  of  hydron  blues  has  resulted.  Their  derivation 
and  properties  therefore  place  them  in  the  same  class  with  the  vat 
blues  derived  from  anthracin.  Clearly  bringing  them  within  that 
group  in  the  tariff  is  in  accord  with  the  avowed  object  of  your  com- 
mittee to  bring  the  classification  of  the  chemical  schedule  up  to  date, 
remove  all  obsolete  features,  and  eliminate  possible  misconstruction. 

Such  treatment  of  these  dyes  is  also  in  accordance  with 

THE     ATTITUDE     OF    CONGRESS    TOWARD    THE     FAST     VAT    DYE     STUFFS 
KNOWN    AS    ALIZARIN    OR    ANTHRACIN    DERIVATIVES    AND    INDIGO. 

For  nearly  40  years  it  lias  been  the  policy  to  exempt  from  duty 
alizarin  or  anthracin  derivatives  and  indigo.  Provisions  exempting 
alizarin,  or  alizarin  or  anthracin  derivatives,  and  indigo,  are  found 
in  every  tariff  since  1875,  the  phraseology  changing  from  time  to 
time  to  meet  the  development  of  the  industry. 


SCHEDULE   A.  165 

PARAGRAPH  15— COAL-TAR  DYES. 

While  the  policy  of  giving  these  products  free  entry  was  departed 
from  for  the  first  time  in  many  years  in  the  bill  which  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  1912,  known  as  H.  R.  20182,  there  was 
no  departure  from  the  policy  of  treating  them  alike.  That  bill 
imposed  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  10  per  cent  on  "alizarin,  natural  or 
artificial,  and  dyes  derived  from  alizarin  or  from  anthracin"  (par.  6) 
and  the  same  rate  on  "indigo,  indigo  extracts,  or  paste  and  indigo 
carmined"  (par.  38). 

If  your  committee  sees  fit  to  remove  the  dyes  just  enumerated 
from  the  free  list  and  subject  them  to  a  tax  of  10  per  cent,  no  ine- 
quality will  result.  But  what  we  ask  is  that  the  phraseology  of  the 
act  should  be  so  clear  that  ah1  dyes  properly  falling  within  the  same 
class  shall  be  treated  alike.  We  do  not  believe  that  your  committee 
intends  that  one  fast  vat  dye  derived  from  anthracin  shall  be  dutiable 
at  10  per  cent  and  another  fast  vat  dye  from  the  same  derivation  shall 
by  reason  of  a  lack  of  clearness  in  the  law  be  assessed  at  30  per  cent. 

The  law  as  it  now  stands  is  interpreted  in  favor  of  certain  German 
manufacturers  who  produce  a  limited  number  of  patented  anthracin 
derivatives  and  import  them  into  this  country,  and  discriminates 
against  other  manufacturers  and  importers  who  have  discovered  and 
developed  valuable  competing  products  in  the  same  class.  No  dyes 
of  this  class  are  manufactured  in  America.  We  believe  you  wiU  wish 
to  correct  this  in  the  interest  of  the  American  textile  industry  as  well 
as  in  fairness  to  the  importer.  Hydron  blues  are  among  the  fastest 
dyes  known  and  are  largely  used  abroad,  but  are  almost  prohibited 
to  the  American  textile  manufacturer  because  of  the  misconstruction 
of  which  we  complain. 

As  the  dyes  for  which  we  speak  have  been  upon  the  market  but 
two  years,  and  have  had  to  pay  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  while  other 
anthracin  dyes  have  paid  notliing,  the  importations  have  been  rela- 
tively small  and  the  aggregate  duty  unsubstantial.  An  equal  or 
greater  amount  of  revenue  would  doubtless  be  collected  from  them 
if  properly  classified  with  the  anthracin  derivatives  because  of  the 
increased  consumption  that  would  result  from  placing  them  upon  a 
competing  basis. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

CASSELLA  COLOR  Co., 
182-184  Front  Street,  New  York  City. 
ROBERT  ALFRED  SHAW, 

Vice  President. 

(Curie,  Smith  &  Maxwell,  attorneys,  32  Broadway,  New  York  City. 
Thomas  M.  Lane,  of  counsel.) 

BRIEF  OF  THE  PACIFIC  MILLS,   COCHECO  DEPARTMENT,  IN 
RE   HYDRON  BLUE,  ETC. 

DOVER,  N.  H.,  February  6,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD,  Esq., 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  We  are  large  users  of  indigoes  and  vat  colors  on  cotton 
goods,  and  we  also  use  hydron  blue  to  a  moderate  extent.  We  have 


166  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  17— PYROXYLIN  COMPOTJNDS. 

just  been  advised  of  the  brief  filed  by  the  Cassella  Color  Co.,  requesting 
the  removal  of  the  misconstruction  in  the  present  tariff,  which  makes 
hydron  blue  dutiable  at  30  percent.  We  believe  a  favorable  action 
in  this  matter  would  be  of  great  advantage,  both  to  the  textile 
industry  and  the  public  in  general. 

Hydron  blue  is  one  of  the  more  important  of  the  recent  additions 
to  the  color  industry,  being  a  decidedly  faster  color  than  indigo,  which 
it  would  largely  replace  if  the  price  were  more  favorable.  At  its 

E resent  price  it  is  used  only  for  the  more  expensive  lines  of  work,  and 
)wering  the  duty  would  undoubtedly  increase  the  use  of  this  valuable 
dyestuff. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

H.  W.  OWEN, 
General  Superintendent. 

PARAGRAPH  16. 

Cobalt,  oxide  of,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH  17. 

Collodion  and  all  compounds  of  pyroxylin  or  of  other  cellulose  esters, 
whether  known  as  celluloid  or  by  any  other  name,  forty  cents  per  pound; 
if  in  blocks,  sheets,  rods,  tubes,  or  other  forms,  not  polished,  wholly  or 
partly,  and  not  made  up  into  finished  or  partly  finished  articles,  forty-five 
cents  per  pound;  if  polished,  wholly  or  partly,  or  if  in  finished  or  partly 
finished  articles,  except  moving-picture  films,  of  which  collodion  or  any 
compound  of  pyroxylin  or  of  other  cellulose  esters,  by  whatever  name  known, 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  sixty-five  cents  per  pound  and  thirty 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  celluloid,  see  also  Park  &  Tilford  et  al.,  page  66. 

PYROXYLIN  COMPOUNDS. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  FRANCIS  A.  GUDGER,  NEW  YORK 
CITY,  IN  BEHALF  OF  MANUFACTURERS  OF  PYROXYLIN 
COMPOUNDS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  10,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Clia-irman  Committee  on   Ways  and  Means,    Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  The  American  manufacturers  of  compounds  of  pyroxylin  beg 
to  express  their  appreciation  of  the  opportunity  afforded  them  to 
bo  heard  by  your  committee  relative  to  contemplated  changes  in  the 
tariff  law  affecting  their  industry,  but  owing  to  the  shortness  of  time 
and  the  absence  of  the  undersigned  upon  the  dates  set  for  the  hearing 
on  paragraph  17,  Schedule  A,  and  realizing  that  your  committee  will 
undoubtedly  be  crowded  to  the  utmost  by  the  large  number  of  persons 
who  will  wish  to  be  heard  on  this  schedule,  we  respectfully  ask  you 
1o  accept  this  short  statement  concerning  the  matter  in  question: 

The  paragraph  in  the  tarhT  act  of  1909  which  is  applicable  to  our 
industry  is  Xo.  17,  Schedule  A. 

We  earnestly  protest  on  behalf  of  the  stockholders  of  our  several 
companies,  as  well  as  on  behalf  of  the  thousands  of  workmen  employed 
in  our  factories  and  factories  of  allied  industries,  against  any  reduc- 
tion in  the  rates  of  duty  now  set  forth  in  paragraph  No.  17  of  Schedule 


SCHEDULE   A.  167 

PARAGRAPH  17— PYROXYLIN  COMPOUNDS. 

A  of  the  act  of  1909.  We  firmly  believe  in  the  justice  of  our  position 
and  feel  that  it  is  supported  by  facts  and  conditions,  the  most  impor- 
tant of  which  we  set  forth  briefly  as  follows: 

First.  Our  product  is  distinctly  and  originally  American.  It  was 
discovered  by  an  American  citizen  forty-odd  years  ago,  and  American 
capital  and  brains  developed  and  perfected  it  to  a  point  where  it 
became  a  valuable  commercial  commodity.  When  that  point  was 
reached  our  patents  were  copied,  our  secret  processes  were  learned 
and  transported  abroad  and  developed  to  such  an  extent  that  to-day 
there  exist  large  factories  in  Germany,  France,  England,  Austria, 
Russia,  Italy,  and  Japan. 

Second.  There  is  no  trust  or  monopoly  in  the  industry  and  never 
has  been.  Each  one  of  the  companies  is  an  independent  corporation 
in  which  the  others  have  no  interest  whatsoever,  marketing  their  goods 
wholly  independent  of  each  other,  and  there  exists  between  them  all 
competition  of  the  very  keenest  character. 

Third.  The  Government  records  will  not  show  a  large  importation 
of  pyroxylin  articles,  but  this  is  because  under  the  interpretation  of 
the  tariff  laws  the  great  majority  of  these  goods  are  imported  into 
this  country  under  other  tariff  schedules  than  the  one  applying 
specifically  to  our  industry.  Such  importations  are,  however,  very 
large  and  increasing  rapidly  and  progressively  year  by  year.  A 
single  glance  at  the  stocks  of  any  of  the  department  or  retail  stores 
throughout  the  country  will  fully  bear  out  this  assertion. 

Fourth.  We  firmly  believe  that  if  the  protection  now  afforded  our 
industry  is  taken  away  or  radically  reduced,  our  business  will  be  seri- 
ously crippled  and  in  many  of  the  lines  now  produced  by  us  will  be 
completely  destroyed,  as  tney  are  now  being  gradually  crippled. 

Fifth.  The  foreign  manufacturers  have  taken  from  us  all  the  markets 
of  the  world  except  the  United  States  of  America,  and  unless  adequate 
protection  is  continued  we  will  undoubtedly  gradually  suffer  the  same 
defeat  at  home  as  abroad. 

Sixth.  Foreign  manufacturers  have  a  great  advantage  over  us  in 
cheaper  crude  materials  and  cheaper  labor,  and  in  many  other  ways, 
both  from  a  point  of  cost  and  labor  conditions.  In  the  European 
countries  well-known  and  well-established  records  show  their  labor 
to  be  less  than  one-third  of  the  wages  paid  in  our  factories.  In 
Japan,  where  there  are  now  two  completed  "celluloid"  factories  on 
modern  improved  scale,  the  labor  is  less  than  a  fourth  or  fifth  of  what 
ours  is  m this  country,  and  some  records  show  it  to  be  far  less  than  this. 

Seventh.  There  is  scarcely  a  single  article  that  we  manufacture  or 
that  is  manufactured  from  our  material  but  what  is  strictly  a  luxury 
and  has  always  been  so  classified  or  which  can  not  be  replaced  by 
other  and  cheaper  materials. 

Eighth.  In  the  manufacture  of  our  material  we  are  very  large 
users  of  two  raw  products,  the  conditions  surrounding  which  we 
wish  to  call  to  your  particular  attention. 

(a)  The  American  manufacturers  of  compounds  of  pyroxylin,while 
unable  to  give  figures  of  an  exact  character,  owing  to  the  competi- 
tion which  prevents  each  from  knowing  the  figures  of  the  other,  are 
users  of  approximately  10,000,000  pounds  of  cotton  per  year  and  a 
decrease  in  our  manufacture  or  a  resulting  cessation  of  our  industry 
will,  of  course,  wholly  or  partially  eliminate  this  consumption. 


168  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

(&)  Our  industry  consumes  millions  of  pounds  of  camphor,  all  of 
which  comes  from  the  Empire  of  Japan.  The  price  of  this  raw  ma- 
terial is  controlled  by  the  Government  of  Japan,  the  supply  is  control- 
led by  the  Government  of  Japan,  and  the  distribution  of  this  material 
is  in  the  hands  of  the  financial  backers  of  the  celluloid  industry  of 
Japan,  all  of  which  places  the  pyroxylin  industry  of  America  largely 
at  the  mercy  of  these  same  Japanese  manufacturers  who  are  plan- 
ning to  become  our  keenest  competitors. 

Finally,  we  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  of  the  pro- 
tection afforded  us  in  paragraph  17,  Schedule  A,  act  of  1909,  and 
the  clean  conduct  of  our  industry  in  botn  giving  to  the  world  and  our 
country  a  commodity  hitherto  unknown,  and  with  prices  reasonable 
and  fair  we  firmly  believe  justify  every  claim  that  we  make  for  this 
encouragement  from  our  Government,  and  we  further  respectfully 
request  and  wish  to  impress  upon  you  the  importance  of  a  more  strict 
and  correct  reading  of  the  paragraph  referring  to  our  product  and 
ask  that  the  following  paragraph  be  appended  to  the  present  tariff 
act  as  it  now  reads: 

"No  article  of  which  a  compound  of  pyroxylin,  or  of  other  cellulose 
esters,  is  a  component  of  chief  value  shall  be  entered  for  import 
under  any  other  classification  bearing  a  lower  rate  of  duty." 
Very  respectfully, 

FRANCIS  A.  GUDGER, 
Second  Vice  President,   The  Arlington  Co. 

PARAGRAPH   18. 

Coloring  for  brandy,  wine,  beer,  or  other  liquors,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH    19. 

Copperas,  or  sulphate  of  iron,  fifteen  hundredths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH   20. 

Drugs,  such  as  barks,  beans,  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbs,  bulbous 
roots,  excrescences,  fruits,  flowers,  dried  fibers,  dried  insects,  grains,  gums 
and  gum  resin,  herbs,  leaves,  lichens,  mosses,  nuts,  nutgalls,  roots,  stems, 
spices,  vegetables,  seeds  (aromatic,  not  garden  seeds),  seeds  of  morbid 
growth,  weeds,  and  woods  used  expressly  for  dyeing  or  tanning;  any  of  the 
foregoing  which  are  natural  and  uncompounded  drugs  and  not  edible,  and 
not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  but  which  are  advanced  in  value  or 
condition  by  any  process  or  treatment  whatever  beyond  that  essential  to  the 
proper  packing  of  the  drugs  and  the  prevention  of  decay  or  deterioration 
pending  manufacture,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound,  and  in  addition 
thereto  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem:  Provided,  That  no  article  containing 
alcohol,  or  in  the  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used,  shall  be  classified 
for  diity  under  this  paragraph. 
For  nutgalls,  see  also  F.  Bredt  &  Co.,  page  54. 

DYEING  OR  TAXXIXG  WOODS,  ETC. 

STATEMENT   OF   R.  A.    McCORMICK,  REPRESENTING 
McCORMICK  &  CO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.    McCormick,    we   have    assigned   to   you    15 
minutes,  if  that  is  satisfactory. 
Mr.  MCCORMICK.  Entirely  so. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer. 


SCHEDULE   A.  169 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

Mr.  McCoRMicK.  R.  A.  McCormick,  of  McCormick  &  Co.,  of  Balti- 
more. Mr.  Chairman,  the  items  that  we  as  a  firm  are  interested  in 
are  very  small  as  compared  with  the  main  item  in  Schedule  A,  and 
I  will  therefore  not  take  up  very  much  of  your  tune  on  them. 

We  handle  a  number  of  articles  in  the  chemical  schedule,  but  wish 
to  speak  only  of  those  under  section  20.  This  section  deals  with  a 
number  of  items  which  we  import  under  the  free  list,  section  559,  but 
which  in  the  ground  state,  or  in  a  state  described  in  the  section  as 
"  advanced  hi  value, "  carry  a  specific  duty  of  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound  and  10  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  principal  items  we  import 
affected  by  the  sections  are:  Section  559,  juniper  berries,  insect 
flowers,  gum  asafetida,  marjoram  leaves,  thyme  leaves,  savory 
leaves,  laurel  leaves,  and  senna  leaves;  section  668,  tumeric  root, 
celery  seed,  caraway  seed,  anise  seed,  fennel  seed,  coriander 
seed,  and  fenugreek.  None  of  these  items,  so  far  as  we  are 
informed  and  also  advised  by  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture,  are  produced  in  this  country  other  than  as  an  occa- 
sional kitchen-garden  product,  except  insect  flowers.  These,  we  are 
advised  by  Prof.  Woodward,  entomologist  of  the  department  of 
agriculture  of  California,  are  cultivated  in  that  State  by  one  grower 
only,  who  sells  all  his  products  at  higher  prices  than  are  paid  for  the 
imported  flowers.  As  the  yield  is  not  one- thousandth  enough  to 
supply  the  demand,  it  would  seem  that  this  single  product  needs  no 
protection  when  unground  or  ground.  Different  grades  of  practically 
every  agricultural  product  may  come  from  the  same  field.  They  will 
vary  in  value  on  account  of  soil  or  season  by  the  care  and  intelligence, 
or  their  lack,  used  in  gathering  the  crops,  together  with  the  facilities 
for  curing  and  weather  conditions  while  being  matured.  Any  of  our 
common  grains,  as  oats,  wheat,  barley,  or  corn,  may  be  so  badly 
grown,  gathered,  cured,  or  protected  that  they  may  be  difficult  to 
market,  but  bring  a  f  air  price  in  the  ground  state,  simply  because  the 
buyer  can  not  so  thoroughly  examine  or  so  easily  see  the  defects  and 
inferiority  when  in  the  ground  condition,  and  also  because  no  chemical 
or  microscopical  examination  will  equal  the  examination  by  the  eye 
when  in  the  whole  state. 

Any  one  of  the  leaves  named  may  lose  its  strength  wholly  or  in 
part,  and  in  consequence  could  not  be  imported  unground,  and  would 
sell  in  the  country  of  origin  for  only  a  fraction  of  the  cost  of  prime 
quality  leaves,  but  could  still  be  ground  and  hardly  denied  entry. 
For  instance,  if  they  were  mixed  with  a  small  quantity  of  first- 
quality  powder,  they  would  meet  every  requirement  for  entry.  In 
some  seeds,  as,  for  instance,  caraway,  the  grains  may  be  exhausted 
in  the  process  of  distilling  the  essential  oil.  The  exhausted  seeds 
are  inert  and  of  no  practical  value,  easily  distinguished  and  condemned 
in  examination  by  the  eye  and  taste,  but  if  ground  and  mixed  with 
powder  from  good  seed  would  pass  current  and  not  be  refused  entry. 

This  danger  of  substitution  is  greater  now  than  a  few  years  ago, 
for  damaged  products  not  up  to  a  certain  well-defined  standard 
may  be  and  are  rejected  when  presented  for  entry  at  our  ports;  there- 
fore the  reasons  for  importing  ground  goods  are  greater  rrorn  a  profit 
standpoint. 


170  TARIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

Heretofore  practically  none  of  these  items  have  been  imported 
in  the  ground  state;  therefore  there  has  been  little  or  no  revenue 
derived  under  this  section  from  the  class  of  goods  named.  In  fram- 
ing a  new  tariff  act  with  reference  to  goods  affected  by  this  section, 
if  the  duty  is  left  unchanged  we  believe  that  in  the  main  importing 
the  ground  goods  will  be  prevented.  It  is,  however,  probable  that 
in  some  instances 'it  will  be  still  found  to  pay  the  foreign  grinder  to 
send  to  the  United  States  inferior  ground  goods  rather  than  good 
class  whole  goods.  In  that  event  this  class  of  goods  would  yield  a 
small  revenue,  but  to  the  detriment  of  the  legitimate  American 
grinder  or  to  the  ultimate  consumer. 

If  duties  are  reduced  additional  revenue  will  be  had,  as  importing 
would  be  fostered,  but  the  dangers  pointed  out  would  be  propor- 
tionately increased.  Putting  these  articles,  if  ground,  on  the  free 
list  would  be  particularly  regrettable  and  would  not  only  bring  in  no 
revenue  but  would  certainly  foster  an  evil  without  any  compensating 
benefit.  A  duty  on  ground  goods  of  this  class  is  for  one  of  two 
objects:  First,  as  a  revenue  producer;  second,  to  entirely  bar  out 
the  goods.  If  for  revenue,  the  duty  must  be  at  a  happy  medium 
between  free  and  so  high  a  tariff  as  to  be  prohibitive,  or  it  must  be 
high  enough  to  be  practically  prohibitive.  The  latter  is  presumably 
the  end  here  sought. 

I  urge  that  your  committee  either  leave  the  duties  as  they  are 
now  or  increase  them,  and  recommend  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  of 
30  per  cent  rather  than  a  combined  specific  and  ad  valorem  duty,  as 
at  present  will  be  best,  and  respectfully  urge  that  this  rate  be  adopted. 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  W.  SKIDDY  ET  AL.,  REPRESENTING 
THE  MANUFACTURERS  OF  DYEWOOD  AND  TANNING  EX- 
TRACTS. 

Paragraphs,  present  law:  No.  20.  Dutiable  list,  Schedule  A; 
No.  22!  Dutiable  list,  Schedule  A.  No.  559.  Free  list. 

Committee  representing  the  manufacture  of  these  extracts  in  the 
United  States:  W.  W.  Skiddy,  Stamford,  Conn.;  Geo.  A  Kerr, 
Lynchburg,  Va.:  Onia  Carr,  Canton,  N.  C.:  The  New  York  Tanning 
Extract  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.;  John  D.  Lewis,  Providence,  R.  I.; 
American  Dyewood  Co..  Chester.  Pa.:  The  Stamford  Manufacturing 
Co.,  Stamford,  Conn.:  Brevard  Tannin  Co.,  Pisgah  Forest,  N.  C.; 
Jno.  E.  Heaid  &  Co..  Lynchburg,  Ya.;  Mount  Union  Extract  Co., 
Mount  Union,  Pa.:  Smethport  Extract  Co.,  Damascus,  Va.;  The 
Tanners  &  Dyers  Extract  Co.,  Charleston,  W.  Va.;  The  Champion 
Fibre  Co.,  Canton.  X.  C.;  Cherokee  Tanning  Extract  Co.,  Andrews, 
N.  C.;  American  Extract  Co.,  Port  Allegheny,  Pa.;  and  others  (see 
page  9,  Compilation  of  Tariff  Hearings). 

WASHINGTON,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  0«car  \V.  Underwood,  chairman,  and  the  honorable  members  of 

the  Way*  and  Means  Committee. 

GENTLEMEN:  Representing  the  manufacturers  of  dyewood  extracts 
and  tanning  extracts  in  the  United  States,  we  beg  to  submit  the 


SCHEDULE   A.  171 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

following  statement  in  connection  with  paragraphs  20  and  22  in  the 
dutiable  list  and  559  in  the  free  list. 

Messrs.  Kerr  &  Can*  are  manufacturers  of  tanning  extracts  only; 
and  Mr.  Skiddy  of  both  dyewood  and  tanning  extracts,  representing 
also  the  dyewood  manufacturers.  These  gentlemen  constitute  a 
committee  appointed  by  these  manufacturing  interests  in  the  United 
States  to  represent  them. 

DYEWOOD   EXTRACTS. 

Your  attention  is  called  to  what  is  known  in  the  present  law  as 
paragraph  No.  20,  Schedule  A,  relative  to  woods  imported  that  are 
used  expressly  for  dyeing  or  tanning,  and  these  woods  represent  the 
raw  material  for  the  manufacturing  of  these  extracts.  These  woods 
have  always  come  into  this  country  free,  provided  that  they  have 
not  been  advanced  in  value  by  grinding,  chipping,  etc.,  as  stated  in 
this  paragraph  No.  20,  and  also  stated  in  a  corresponding  section  of 
the  free  list  No.  559. 

These  woods  come  from  the  islands  of  the  West  Indies,  from  the 
Gulf  ports  of  Mexico,  and  from  South  American  ports,  aiding  very 
materially  the  trading  and  shipping  interests  between  these  countries 
and  the  United  States.  Cargoes  consisting  of  a  great  variety  of 
goods  can  always  be  secured  for  export  from  this  country,  but  owing 
to  the  fewer  articles  that  these  countries  have  that  can  be  used  in 
the  United  States,  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  return  cargoes. 

When  these  trees  are  cut  down,  it  takes  but  a  short  time  for  con- 
siderable of  the  bark  to  peel  off  naturally,  owing  to  the  heat  in  these 
countries,  so  that  the  chipping  is  resorted  to,  to  save  time.  This 
saves  unnecessary  handling  and  freight  on  the  worthless  bark,  and 
enables  the  storing  of  the  wood  in  vessels  to  better  advantage. 

The  adding  of  the  word  "peeling"  in  the  two  sections  named, 
would  place  a  duty  on  them  for  the  first  time,  adding  greatly  to  then* 
cost,  for  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  and  10  per  cent  ad  valorem 
would  mean  over  1J  cents  per  pound  on  the  extract,  as  you  can  call 
4  tons  of  wood  equal  to  1  ton  of  extract,  and  the  value  in  the  United 
States  $19  to  $20  per  ton. 

Endless  litigation  would  also  be  created  in  trying  to  prove  what 
bark  had  fallen  off  naturally  and  what  had  been  chipped  off,  opening 
wide  the  door  for  misrepresentation  and  fraud. 

A  sample  of  the  wood  of  the  logwood  tree,  and  of  the  bark  of  same, 
and  one  of  the  quebracho  tree  and  the  bark,  is  submitted. 

These  dyewood  extracts  also  meet  strong  competition  in  the  impor- 
tation of  coal  tar  or  aniline  colors,  manufactured  in  Germany,  all  of 
them  having  a  prohibitive  protection  for  a  long  term  of  years  by 
United  States  patents. 

The  tonnage  imported  annually  of  these  dyewoods  at  the  present 
time  is  not  as  great  as  many  years  ago,  owing  to  the  competition 
with  foreign  goods  and  aniline  colors. 

These  conditions  have  caused  several  manufacturers  of  dyewood 
extracts  of  former  days  to  quit  the  business. 

In  the  early  eighties  there  was  from  seventy  to  eighty  thousand 
tons  of  wood  brought  into  this  country,  and,  if  I  remember  correctly, 


172  TABIFF   HEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  20— DYEING  OB  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

nearly  100,000  tons  per  annum  prior  to  that  time;  the  figures  since 
1906,  according  to  the  United  States  reports,  show  as  follows: 

Importations  of  logwood  and  fustic  into  the  United  States  from  1906-1912,  inclusive. 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30  — 

Logwood. 

Fustic. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30— 

Logwood. 

Fustic. 

1906... 

36,625 

5,783 

1910  

31,270 

5,816 

1907 

37  902 

(i) 

1911 

35  340 

5,379 

1908... 

21,809 

4,452 

1912 

39,571 

(i) 

1909 

17  873 

2  466 

1  No  record. 

In  1897  nearly  the  whole  of  the  textile  manufacturers,  the  users 
of  these  extracts,  presented  a  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the 
duty  on  these  dyewood  extracts  of  seven-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound 
and  as  at  present  in  paragraph  22,  realizing  that  any  injury  done  to 
the  manufacturers  in  this  country  would  greatly  decrease  compe- 
tition and  that  it  was  the  home  competition  that  kept  down  the 
prices  for  them,  not  only  in  dyewood  extract,  but  in  the  patented 
German  aniline  extracts. 

These  dyewood  extracts  are  made  in  England,  Germany,  France, 
and  Russia,  and  25  years  ago  the  United  States  shipped  large  quan- 
tities to  France  and  Russia,  but  these  countries  placed  a  prohibitive 
tariff  on  them,  completely  killing  these  exports.  France  has  been 
using  this  country  as  a  dumping  ground  for  these  extracts  when  their 
manufacturing  output  could  not  be  taken  care  of  in  their  own  country. 

The  duty  on  dvewood  extracts  in  France,  unless  it  has  been  lately 
changed,  is  on  blacks  and  violets  (which  is  logwood),  20  francs  per 
hundred  kilos,  which  equals  1.8  of  a  cent  per  pound,  and  on  reds  and 
yellows  (which  means  fustic  and  redwoods)  30  francs  per  hundred 
kilos,  which  represents  2.7  of  a  cent  per  pound,  and  I  do  not  know  of 
any  commercial  agreement  between  the  two  countries  that  changes 
in  any  way  these  rates. 

The  wages  paid  in  this  country  are  much  higher  than  paid  in 
England,  France,  or  Germany. 

Any  reduction  from  the  present  rate  of  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  per 
pound  on  these  extracts,  as  in  paragraph  Xo.  22,  would  be  an  encour- 
agement to  the  European  manufacturers  to  ship  their  surplus  to  this 
country,  thus  running  their  factories  full  at  the  expense  of  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturers,  knowing  that  their  tariffs  prohibit  interference 
from  the  American  market. 

During  the  last  few  years,  as  stated,  five  or  six  manufacturers  of 
dyewood  extracts,  included  in  former  tariff  hearings,  have  been 
obliged  to  go  out  of  business,  owing  to  foreign  competition,  including 
aniline  colors,  thus  reducing  profits,  and  those  few  who  remain  earn- 
estly ask  that  no  change  be  made  in  the  present  law,  thereby  crip- 
pling their  business  and  probablv  reducing  still  further  the  number 
left. 

TANNING    EXTRACTS. 


Tanning  extracts  are  made  from  various  woods  and  under  processes 
similar  to  dvewood  extracts. 


SCHEDULE  A.  173 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

The  largest  quantities  of  tanning  extracts  used  in  the  United  States 
are  those  made  from  chestnut  wood  and  quebracho  wood.  These 
extracts  are  manufactured  in  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
Tennessee,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  Connecticut.  The  chestnut 
wood  used  grows  in  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  and  Tennessee,  and  the  quebracho  wood  is  imported  from 
the  Republics  of  Argentina  and  Paraguay. 

As  already  stated,  a  sample  of  the  quebracho  wood  and  of  the  bark 
has  been  submitted.  This  wood  holds  the  same  position  as  dyewoods, 
according  to  paragraphs  20  and  559  of  the  present  law,  and  the  same 
statement  made  for  dye  wood  applies  to  quebracho  wood. 

We  would  add  that  after  a  quebracho  tree  has  been  cut  down  and 
allowed  to  lie  on  the  ground,  which  is  always  the  case,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  remove  the  bark;  otherwise  the  sap  contained  in  this 
bark  breeds  a  large  quantity  of  worms  which  immediately  attack  the 
wood  and  injures  its  value  for  extract  purposes. 

The  duty  thus  created  would  add,  as  stated  regarding  dyewood 
extracts,  an  additional  cost  to  the  extract  manufactured  in  this 
country  of  over  1J  cents  per  pound.  We  pray  that  this  word  "peel- 
ing" will  not  be  placed  in  these  sections. 

The  first  mention  of  quebracho  distinct  from  other  tanning  extracts 
was  made  in  the  law  of  1897.  At  that  time  only  one  grade  was  shipped 
into  this  country,  as  regards  density  or  gravity,  and  that  grade  was  a 
liquid  article  in  barrels  standing  at  about  28°  Baum6  and  containing 
abt  ut  35  per  cent  of  tannic  acid,  and  the  law  of  1897  placed  upon 
this  grade  one-half  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

Tanning  extracts  are  sold  by  me  pound,  the  price  per  pound  based 
upon  the  percentage  of  tannic  acid  or  tannin,  as  it  is  termed,  contained 
in  a  pound;  therefore,  according  to  the  strength  or  the  weakness 
of  the  percentage  of  tan  is  fixed  the  price  per  pound  on  the  market. 

Some  tune  after  1897  and  prior  to  1909  great  improvements  were 
made  in  machinery  and  apparatus  for  the  reducing  of  liquid  extracts 
to  solid  extracts  without  injury  to  the  article  so  reduced.  Extracts 
from  woods  are  very  susceptible  and  can  easily  be  ruined  by  excessive 
heat,  nothing  more  so  than  tannic  acid,  and  these  new  methods  and 
improvements  enabled  the  manufacturer  of  the  liquid  to  reduce  these 
extracts  further,  or,  in  other  words,  to  take  the  liquid  which  was  at 
28°  Baume,  representing  one-half  quebracho  extract  and  one-half 
water  and  containing  35  per  cent  of  tannic  acid,  to  a  heavier  density 
by  driving  off  the  half  amount  of  water,  and  producing  what  is  known 
as  solid  extract. 

By  driving  off  this  water  they  of  course  made  1  pound  of  extract 
represent,  more  quebracho  and  less  water,  the  result  showing  that 
this  solid  article  contained  about  12  to  15  per  cent  of  water  only  and 
65  per  cent  of  tannic  acid.  This  decrease  of  water  and  increased 
percentage  of  tannic  acid  immediately  increased  the  value  per  pound; 
therefore  in  1909  the  manufacturers  of  this  extract  in  the  United 
States  asked  that  an  adjustment  or  equalization  be  made  to  meet 
these  new  conditions,  and  that  the  duty  of  one-half  of  1  cent  per 
pound  on  the  liquid  quebracho  remain  as  in  the  law  of  1897,  bv 
adding  the  words  " under  28°  Baume"  (which  is  the  universal  stand- 
ard in  this  country  and  all  European  countries  to  distinguish  the 


174  TAHIPF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

difference  between  liquid  and  solid  extracts),  and  that  the  solid 
extract,  or  that  above  28°  Baume",  be  placed  at  seven-eighths  of  1 
cent  per  pound,  which  would  equal  the  one-half  cent  per  pound  on 
the  liquid,  as  the  solid  was  65  per  cent  tannic  acid  instead  of  35  per 
cent,  as  in  the  liquid. 

The  Congress  at  that  time,  in  1909,  saw  fit  to  make  the  rate  of 
duty  on  the  solid  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  pound,  as  per  paragraph 
21  in  present  law,  instead  of  seven-eighths  of  a  cent,  which  we  asked 
for,  which  was  a  slight  reduction,  as  it  made  the  duty  based  on  the 
percentage  of  tannic  acid  (viz,  65  per  cent)  less  than  the  old  duty 
of  one-half  cent  on  the  liquid  (viz,  35  per  cent)  as  in  1897.  The 
foreign  manufacturer,  in  addition  to  this  decrease  in  duty  on  sol  d, 
gained  a  reduction  of  freight,  in  that  they  did  not  pay  on  the  weight 
of  barrels,  as  they  put  up  and  ship  the  solid  in  bags,  which  is  a  much 
cheaper  package  than  barrels,  also  saving  the  freight  on  50  per  cent 
water  that  they  formerly  paid  on  the  liquid  extract  and  getting 
about  double  the  price  they  could  get  for  the  liquid  which  they 
brought  in  under  the  law  of  1897. 

Manufacturers  of  tanning  extracts  have  always  felt,  and  still  do, 
that  this  adjustment  was  not  an  advance  in  1909,  but  actually  a 
reduction.  Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  1909  law  liquid 
extracts  were  no  longer  imported  into  this  country,  they  coming 
only  in  solid  form. 

The  foreign  manufacturer  is  noted  for  his  shrewdness,  and  were  it 
not  to  his  advantage  he  would  not  have  dropped  the  liquid  entirely 
in  favor  of  the  solid. 

Our  greatest  competition  in  quebracho  extract — in  fact,  we  might 
say  90  per  cent  of  it — comes  from  the  Argentine  Republic,  and  from 
one  concern  in  that  country  known  as  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  & 
Railways  Co.  In  1896  and  1897,  when  this  extract  was  first  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States,  there  were  a  number  of  small  independent 
manufacturers  in  the  Argentine,  but  certain  Germans,  seeing  an 
opportunity  for  large  combinations,  started  in,  and  late  in  1907  our 
agent  or  representative  in  Buenos  Aires  wrote  us  a  letter  in  which  he 
said  an  agreement  has  been  made  between  several  of  the  quebracho- 
extract  manufacturers,  etc.,  of  the  Argentine  as  to  the  fixing  of  prices 
and  the  soiling  of  the  extract,  and  stating  that  "the  signing  parties 
aro  tlio  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co.,  the  Puerto  Sastre 
Co.,  T.  II.  Brncht  &  Co.,  the  Puerto  Marie,  the  Industrial  Del  Chaco, 
and  tlio  Cnssjulos." 

Sijiee  that  timo  we  have  been  constantly  hearing  of  the  Forestal 
Trust,  and  nothing  we  think  can  bo  more  convincing  as  to  their 
increased  growth  and  power  and  control  of  this  business  than  to 
quoio  from  their  own  reports  and  the  newspaper  statements,  relative 
to  ^  hat  they  have  done. 

hi  190'.)  there  appeared  a  small  pamphlet  published  in  London  by 
1!  is  company,  giving  maps,  views,  and  facts  concerning  their  busi- 
ness, and  thoy  state  in  this  prospectus  that  their  chief  business  is  to 
make.  \Sio  extract  from  the  quebracho  wood.  We  quote: 

It  ;s  infeivsiino;  to  note  that  tlio  pioneers  of  the  quebracho-extract  industry  were 
Messrs.  Hartneck,  Portalis  &  Renner,  now  directors  of  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  & 
Railways  Co. 


SCHEDULE   A.  175 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

The  result  of  the  labors  of  those  gentlemen  culminated  in  the  formation  of  the  Com- 
pania  Forestal  del  Chaco,  which  built  a  factory  at  Guillermina,  capable  of  turning 
out  24,000  tons  of  extract  per  annum,  some  300  miles  north  of  the  factory  which  had 
already  been  established  at  Calchaqui,  which  had  a  capacity  of  14,000  tons  yearly, 
and  they  later  on  completed  a  third  plant  with  a  capacity  of  7,000  tons  yearly  at 
Peguaho. 

The  business  of  that  company  was  taken  over  by  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Rail- 
ways Co.  (Ltd.),  as  from  the  1st  January,  1906.  This  company  has  now  a  share  capital 
of  1,200,000  pounds  sterling,  of  which  1,171,500  pounds  sterling  has  been  issued, 
divided  equally  into  preference  and  ordinary  shares,  besides  477,680  pounds  sterling 
outstanding  5  per  cent  first  mortgage  debentures. 

On  a  slip  placed  in  this  book  after  publication  they  say: 

Since  this  pamphlet  was  sent  to  press,  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co. 
(Ltd.),  has  purchased  $1,500,000  paper  (or,  say  130,000  pounds  sterling)  of  6  per  cent 
first  mortgage  debentures  of  La  Sociedad  Quebrachales  Fusionados  at  90,  and  secured 
at  the  same  time,  the  consignment  of  the  total  production  of  the  Fusionados  extract 
for  the  next  seven  years. 

The  Review  of  the  River  Plate  (a  trade  paper  published  in  Buenos 
Aires),  under  date  of  June  16,  1911,  presents  the  report  of  the  directors 
to  the  stockholders  for  the  year  1910,  and  states: 

The  company  has  taken  a  substantial  participation  in  the  capital  of  the  Ocampo 
Railway  Co.,  which  owns  36  kilometers  of  permanent  way  between  the  port  of  Ocampo 
and  the  terminus  of  the  company's  Malberti  Railway,  together  with  rolling  stock,  an 
investment  which  will  conduce  to  the  economical  working  of  the  Campo  Redondo 
factory.  The  directors  have  been  advised  by  cable  that  the  long-deferred  arrangement 
with  the  Fusionados  Co.  has  been  completed,  and  they  await  fuller  mail  particulars. 

The  Fusionados  Co.  and  the  Hardy  &  Co.  were  the  largest  and 
strongest  competitors  the  Forestal  Co.  had  in  the  Argentine,  and 
now  they  own  or  control  them  both. 

In  1912,  at  their  stockholders'  meeting  in  London,  they  issued  a 
statement,  with  a  balance  sheet  (a  copy  of  which  We  have)  showing  a 
profit  of  over  429,000  pounds  sterling.  They  also  declared  for  1911 
dividends,  the  same  as  previous  year  1910,  viz,  14  per  cent  on  their 
preferred  stock  and  24  per  cent  on  their  ordinary  or  common  stock. 

Next  to  the  Argentine,  the  largest  manufacturing  interests  of  this 
extract,  is  found  in  Germany  and  was  started  some  years  ago  in 
Hamburg  by  Mr.  Herman  Renner.  This  gentlemen,  as  already 
shown,  is  a  director  in  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co., 
and  we  now  quote  from  a  Hamburg  paper  of  October  28,  1912,  as 
follows : 

[Gerb  und  Farbstoffwerke  H.  Renner  &  Cle,  A.  Q.  Hamburg.] 

The  principal  object  of  the  extraordinary  stockholders'  meeting  held  on  October 
28  was  the  proposition  to  accept  an  amalgamation  of  interests  with  the  Forestal  Land, 
Timber  &  Railways  Co.  (Ltd.),  London.  The  presiding  officer,  Herr  Geh.  Kom- 
merzieurat,  Dr.  Ing.  Carl  Delius  opened  the  meeting  with  the  statement  that  the  ex- 
ecutive committee  felt  sure  that  the  amalgamation  of  interests  would  be  beneficial 
to  the  shareholders.  The  principal  points  of  the  contract  were  as  follows: 

We  conclude  on  January  1,  1913,  an  amalgamation  of  interest  with  the  Forestal 
Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co.  (Ltd.),  by  handing  over  our  total  profit,  including  the 
dividends,  received  from  our  ownership  of  Forestal  shares  and  other  participations  in 
connection  with  the  Forestal  Co. 

The  Renner  Co.  continues  its  present  and  absolutely  independent  organization; 
we  in  return  are  to  receive  a  payment,  which  shall  be  governed  by  the  dividend  paid 
on  the  common  and  preferred  shares  of  the  Forestal.  Calculating  the  dividend  of  19 
per  cent  paid  for  the  past  2  years  on  the  fully  paid-in  capital,  said  payment  would 
amount  to  1,940,000  marks  a  year. 


176  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

Every  reduction  of  1  per  cent  would  be  equal  to  a  decrease  of  100,000  marks;  every 
addition  of  1  per  cent  would  represent  an  increase  of  80,000  marks,  but  in  no  case 
shall  the  payment  of  the  Forestal  Co.  exceed  two  and  one-half  millions  yearly. 

We  to  receive  10  per  cent  of  all  special  reserves,  but  said  amounts  shall  be  de- 
ducted whenever  said  reserves  later  on  are  paid  out  in  the  shape  of  dividends. 

We  bind  ourselves  not  to  sell  any  of  our  "participations"  without  the  consent  of 
the  Forestal.  This  conditions  does  not  include  the  11,669  preferred  Forestal  and 
9,624  common  shares,  procured  last  year,  with  which  we  can  act  as  we  please. 

Any  profit  we  may-  make  by  a  sale  of  these  shares  does  not  belong  to  the  Forestal 
Co.,  but  to  our  stockholders;  we  have  also  reserved  to  ourselves  the  ownership  of  a 
special  reserve  fund  of  600,000  marks  set  aside  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  a  supple- 
ment to  our  dividends  in  special  instances. 

This  agreement  has  been  made  for  a  period  of  10  years  and  can  be  mutually  can- 
celed by  giving  notice  6  months  in  advance — earliest  per  January  1,  1920 — by  the 
payment  of  30,000  pounds  sterling  as  a  compensation. 

The  compensation  of  a  cancellation  for  1921  is  reduced  to  25,000  pounds  sterling 
and  for  1922  to  20,000  pounds  sterling. 

The  legal  settlement  of  disputes  shall  be  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  English 
auditors  Deloitte,  Plender,  Griffiths  &  Co.,  and  the  Revision  Treuhand  A.  G.  Berlin. 

As  a  public  indication  of  the  amalgamation  of  interests,  we  propose  the  supple- 
mentary election  of  Mr.  C.  Hartneck,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Forestal  Co.,  as  a 
member  of  our  executive  committee. 

We  ourselves  are  represented  on  the  board  of  the  Forestal  Co.  by  our  president,  Herr 
Kommerzieurat  and  Herman  Renner. 

The  stockholders  accepted  the  agreement  unanimously  by  accla- 
mation; in  the  same  Way  Mr.  Hartneck  was  elected  a  member  of  the 
executive  committee. 

In  reply  to  the  question  of  a  stockholder,  whether  the  possibility 
exists  to  receive  for  the  current  year  a  considerably  higher  dividend, 
the  presiding  officer  stated  that,  taking  as  a  basis  the  result  of  the 
past  9  months,  it  is  believed  that  at  least  the  same  dividend  as  the 
one  paid  last  year  will  be  distributed. 

But  at  the  last  moment  he  could  not  say  whether  a  larger  dividend 
could  be  paid,  because  it  was  impossible  to  foretell  the  result  of  the 
remaining  three  months,  and,  further,  nobody  could  tell  whether 
some  complication  in  reference  to  the  political  situation  may  arise. 

In  regard  to  the  future  prospect  of  the  Forestal  Co.,  the  president, 
Mr.  Renner,  stated  that  the  present  year  was  of  less  interest  for  said 
company  than  the  years  1913  and  1914. 

The  outlook  for  the  year  1913  could  be  called  extraordinarily 
favorable,  because  there  have  been  made  such  large  sales  of  extract 
that  it  is  believed  that  the  average  dividend  of  19  per  cent — paid  for 
some  years  past — is  safe.  In  the  future  also  we  may  count  upon 
receiving  the  same  good  dividends  regularly. 

In  reply  to  a  further  question  the  speaker  gave  the  additional  infor- 
mation that  the  stockholders'  meeting  of  the  Forestal  Co.  was  taking 
place  on  October  28  at  3.30  p.  m.  in  London,  and  in  that  way  alt 
formalities  in  reference  to  the  amalgamation  of  interest  were  settled 
on  the  same  day. 

Again  we  quote  from  the  Financial  Times  of  London,  under  date 
of  September  25,  1912: 

The  Financial  Times,  referring  to  the  reported  amalgamation  of  the  Santa  Fe  Land 
Co.  with  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co.,  remarks  that  this  will  enable 
them,  if  the  project  is  realized,  to  keep  up  the  present  price  of  quebracho,  the  working 
of  which  is  the  principal  object  of  the  two  companies. 

Thus  it  seems  that  the  control  of  this  business  is  pretty  well  in  the 
hands  of  one  company,  and  all  they  require  now  in  order  to  control 


SCHEDULE   A.  177 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

a  large  part  of  the  world  is  the  American  manufacturing  interests 
which  a  reduced  tariff  rate  would  make  it  easy  for  them  to  accom- 
plish. 

In  the  hearings  before  your  committee  in  1909  Mr.  Klipstein,  the 
agent  of  the  Forestal  Land,  Timber  &  Railways  Co.,  undertook  to  deny 
a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Skiddy  that  there  had  been  a  trust  formed 
in  the  Argentine  in  1907  to  control  the  price  of  quebracho  extract, 
but  his  denial  is  as  follows: 

Mr.  Skiddy  states  that  there  was  formed  a  trust  in  Argentine  in  1907  to  control  the 
pri;  e  of  quebracho  extract.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  manufacturers  of  quebracho 
extract,  in  view  of  the  impending  panic,  tried  to  form  a  combination  to  prevent  enor- 
mous losses,  but  the  panic  was  too  severe,  and  the  combine  went  to  pieces,  and  the 
price  of  2£  cents  per  pound  for  quebracho  extract,  as  mentioned  in  our  first  state- 
ment, was  the  result.  The  Argentine  makers  of  extract  had  to  take  their  panic  med- 
icine like  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 

Please  note  that  the  price  went  to  2£  cents  per  pound  in  1908,  as 
stated  by  Mr.  Klrpstein,  prior  to  then-  purchase  of  130,000  pounds 
sterling  of  the  Fusionados  Co.,  a  very  natural  result  of  prices  below 
the  cost  of  manufacture. 

Mr.  Klipstein  in  1909  furthermore  stated  before  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  in  a  brief  that  the  price  used  to  be  4£  cents  to 
5  cents  per  pound,  and  generally  imported  in  the  form  of  the  liquid 
extract. 

Bear  in  mind,  if  you  please,  that  Mr.  Klipstein  hi  this  statement  is 
referring  back  prior  to  the  time  of  their  making  solid  extract,  and 
before  they  realized  the  growth  of  the  American  competition,  and 
this  competition  when  realized  caused  a  reduction  from  4£  or  5  cents 
for  liquid  at  35  per  cent  tan  to  4  cents  for  solid  at  65  per  cent  tan 
(worth  in  the  market  almost  double  the  price  of  the  liquid),  or,  in 
other  words,  they  were  selling  liquid  without  the  American  competi- 
tion at  a  price  equal  to  9^  cents  per  pound  for  the  solid  that  thev  are 
selling  to-day  for  4  cents  per  pound.  Why  should  not  prices  advance 
again  without  competition? 

If  the  Forestal  Co.  or  their  representatives  in  this  country  under- 
take to  claim  that  they  are  being  frozen  out  and  that  the  present 
rates  of  duty  are  so  great  they  can  not  compete,  then  we  would  refer 
you  to  their  statements  already  made  in  their  reports  to  their  stock- 
holders at  their  annual  meetings  held  in  London  and  their  continuing 
to  pay  24  per  cent  on  their  ordinary  stock  and  14  per  cent  on  their 
preferred  stock. 

Such  dividends  have  not  been  and  can  not  be  earned  by  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturers.  A  reduction  in  the  present  duty  would  tend  to 
bring  about  one  of  two  results,  either  the  closing  out  by  the  American 
manufacturers  at  great  loss,  or  the  temptation  to  get  together, 
advance  prices,  and  control  the  market. 

We  also  have  received  a  copy  of  the  Daily  Mail  of  Paris,  under  date 
of  November  14,  1912,  with  an  advertisement  of  the  Forestal  Land, 
Timber  &  Railways  Co.,  stating  that  the  capitalization  is  1,700,000 
pounds  sterling,  setting  forth  their  great  earning  power,  etc.,  and 
offering  to  sell  1,000,000  pounds  sterling  of  5  per  cent  first  mortgage 
bonds. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 12 


178 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

That  imports  have  not  been  checked  by  the  present  tariff,  we  sub- 
mit the  following  table: 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30— 

Tons  of  wood  received  and 
amount  of  extract  same 
represents  each  Govern- 
ment fiscal  year. 

Tons  of  solid  extract  im- 
ported into  the  United 
States  and  the  tons  of 
wood    same    represents 
each  Government  fiscal 
year. 

Per  cent  ex- 
cess of  extract 
imported  and 
wood  used 
for  same 
above  that 
used  for  man- 
ufacture in 
the  United 
States. 

Tons  of  wood 
received  in 
the  United 
States  per 
Department 
of  Commerce 
and  Labor. 

Represents 
in  solid 
extract 
(pounds). 

Pounds  of 
solid  extract 
imported 
into  United 
States  per 
Department 
of  Commerce 
and  Labor. 

Represents 
total  tons 
wood  used 
for  same. 

1906    

87,838 
67,310 
48,871 
66,113 
80,210 
64,703 
68,174 

49,189,280 
37,693,600 
27,367,760 
37,023,280 
44,917,600 
36,238,720 
38,177,400 

43,989,707 
76,479,846 
62,593,671 
99,108,284 
90,483,576 
77,606,700 
74,239,715 

78,553 
136,572 
111,774 
176,979 
161,578 
138,584 
132,571 

1907  

102.8 
128.7 
107.7 
101.4 
114.2 
94.4 

1908    

1909  

1910    

1911  

1912         

Please  note  that  in  1906  the  United  States  manufacturers  did  a 
little  more  business  in  pounds  of  extract  than  did  the  importers.  The 
Forestal  Trust  at  that  time,  as  already  shown,  was  not  fully  in  the 
saddle,  but  later  the  imports  were  considerably  over  100  per  cent,  and 
in  1908-1909  it  was  the  largest,  probably  due  to  the  low  price  of  2£ 
cents  mentioned  by  Mr.  Klipstein. 

The  year  1912  shows  about  double  the  quantity  of  extract 
imported  as  compared  with  the  quantity  manufactured  in  this 
country,  but  a  decrease  of  about  20  per  cent  from  the  imports  of  1911. 
This  decrease  can  not  be  attributed  to  the  increase  of  the  home 
manufacture,  as  they  only  show  about  5  per  cent  increase  between  the 
same  years,  which  was  10  per  cent  less  than  they  showed  in  1910. 

The  present  tariff  can  not  be  called  excessive;  otherwise,  the 
imports  would  not  exceed  the  home  manufacture  by  100  per  cent  and 
maintain  this  position  year  after  year. 

We  understand  that  the  desideratum  of  tariff  adjustment  is 
to  establish  a  rate  that  will  produce  the  greatest  revenue,  combined 
with  greatest  encouragement  for  both  home  and  foreign  competition; 
therefore  as  a  tariff  for  revenue  and  competition  the  present  rate 
should  be  retained. 


Total   money   re- 
ceived by  pres- 
ent rates  on  the 
actual    imports 
each   year,  viz, 
three-  fourths 
cent  per  pound.1 

Total   money  re- 
ceived at  a  rate 
of  three-eighths 
cent  per  pound 
on  total  used  hi 
United     States 
by  adding  to  ac- 
tual imports  the 
amount    manu- 
factured    hi 
the      United 
States.* 

Loss  in  revenue  to 
the  Government 
even  by  having 
total     consump- 
tion imported  at 
three-eighths 
cent  per  pound 
and  home  manu- 
facture wiped  out 
and  no  competi- 
tion.' 

1907 

$573,598  84 

$428,  150.  40 

$  145,  448  44 

1908 

469,452.52 

337,355.37 

132,  097.  15 

1909  

743,312.13 

510,493.36 

232,  818.  78 

1910 

678,  626.  82 

507,754.41 

170,872.41 

1911  

582,  050.  25 

426,901.41 

155,  148.  84 

1912 

556,797.85 

421,564.33 

135,  233.  52 

1  Three-fourths  per  cent  on  account  imports. 


1  Three-eighths  on  all. 


'Loss. 


SCHEDULE  A.  179 

PABAGBAPH  20— DYEING  OB  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

If  the  tanners  of  this  country  understood  the  actual  conditions, 
they  would  be  more  anxious  than  the  extract  manufacturers  to  have 
the  duty  on  these  extracts  maintained. 

We  have  seen  of  late  articles  in  the  leather-trade  papers  advocating 
reductions  in  the  tariff,  all  written  by  importers  or  representatives  of 
foreign  manufacturers  (or  their  employees),  the  usual  method  they 
have  adopted  for  years  prior  to  tariff  hearings. 

On  the  30th  day  of  August  last  the  Stamford  Manufacturing  Co. 
wrote  to  their  agent  in  Buenos  Aires,  putting  to  him  a  few  questions, 
wishing  to  have  an  answer  in  time  to  place  before  your  committee, 
which  we  now  submit : 

Question  No.  1.  What  is  the  wage  per  day  or  month  of  the  ordinary  laborer  at  a 
quebracho  factory  in  the  Argentine? 
Answer.  The  wage  of  the  ordinary  laborer  in  the  Chaco  is  about  $20  per  month. 

NOTE. — In  this  country  the  ordinary  laborer  receives  $1.75  per  day, 
about  127^  per  cent  higher. 

Question  No.  2.  What  are  the  wages  per  day  or  month  of  a  more  intelligent  man, 
such  as  bosses,  etc.?  • 

Answer.  The  wages  of  a  more  intelligent  man,  such  as  a  foreman,  is  about  $40  per 
month,  or  perhaps  $50. 

NOTE.— The  wage  of  such  men  in  this  country  is  from  $2.75  to  $3 
per  day,  about  56  per  cent  higher. 

Question  No.  3.  What  are  the  wages  per  day  or  month  of  still  higher  class  of  me- 
chanics or  engineers  who  have  to  be  imported  to  that  country? 
Answer.  About  $80  a  month. 

NOTE. — In  this  country  from  $4  to  $4.50  a  day,  about  46  per  cent 
higher. 

Certain  other  questions  as  to  cost,  freights,  etc.,  he  states,  depends 
upon  distance,  freight,  etc.,  making  the  cost  of  the  solid  extract  on 
board  vessel  ready  for  shipment  to  the  United  States  at  from  $59  to 
$62  gold  per  thousand  kilos. 

NOTE. — This  represents  2.6—2.7  cents  per  pound.  To  this  must 
be  added  the  freight  from  the  Argentine  and  the  present  duty  to  give 
the  cost  price  here. 

Assuming  an  equal  division  of  the  various  grades  of  labor  (although 
the  ordinary  labor  of  $1.75  per  day  would  be  the  largest),  the  average 
shows  76  per  cent  higher  in  this  country  than  in  the  Argentine 
Republic.  The  difference  in  wages,  taking  the  cost  of  the  extract 
in  this  country  and  as  shown  to  be  in  the  Argentine,  estimated  on 
the  average  higher  wage  of  76  per  cent,  shows  about  nine-tenths  of 
1  cent  per  pound. 

Chestnut  extracts  are  largely  used  in  connection  with  quebracho 
extracts,  a  combination  of  the  two  extracts  used  quite  extensively 
by  the  tanners. 

Chestnut  extracts  are  made  abroad  and  could  easily  become  a  part 
of  the  business  of  quebracho  manufacturers,  a  natural  result  of  a 
reduction  in  the  present  tariff.  Such  a  result  would  be  injurious  to 
the  American  chestnut  manufacturers,  probably  causing  many  of 
them  to  quit  business,  thus  throwing  on  the  market  many  plants  at 
low  prices,  the  purchase  of  which  might  result  in  the  absolute  control 
of  the  two  most  important  and  largely  used  extracts  by  the  tanners 
in  the  United  States. 


180  TABTFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

The  attached  pamphlet  is  submitted  as  part  of  this  brief,  it  being 
a  compilation  of  the  tariff  hearings  in  1909  and  since,  and  which  we 
believe  in  this  form  will  be  of  aid  to  your  honorable  committee. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  W.  W.  SKIDDY,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  28, 1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Certain  corrected  figures  furnished  by  the  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor  somewhat  changed  the  brief  under  date  of 
January  6,  1913,  relative  to  the  dutiable  clauses  No.  20  and  No.  22 
in  Schedule  A,  and  559  on  the  free  list.  (Corrections  made  in  brief 
above.) 

I  also  beg  that  you  accept  a  few  statements  further  in  relation  to 
the  matter. 

First,  that  you  notice  in  a  page  taken  out  of  the  Review  of  the 
River  Plate  under  date  of  December  13,  1912,  being  a  general  trade 
paper,  published  in  Buenos  Aires,  which  shows,  according  to  the  re- 
ports from  the  Argentine  Government,  the  exports  for  the  first  11 
months  of  1912,  and  notice  the  total  amount  of  quebracho  wood  ex- 
ported from  that  country,  there  was  31  per  cent  of  it  shipped  to  the 
United  States  and  34  per  cent  of  it  shipped  to  Germany,  and  there 
was  shipped  of  the  extract  to  the  United  States  41  per  cent  of  the 
total  and  to  Germany  only  17  per  cent,  showing  that  an  excess  of 
the  manufactured  article  over  the  raw  material  to  the  United  States 
was  10  per  cent,  but  that  to  Germany  it  was  the  reverse,  and  there 
was  85  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  raw  material  over  the  manufactured 
goods. 

The  total  raw  material,  therefore,  would  indicate  that  65  per  cent 
of  it  was  shipped  1o  the  United  States  and  Germany. 

These  figures  prove  absolutely  that  when  41  per  cent  of  the  total 
exports  of  any  particular  kind  of  manufactured  goods  from  any  one 
country  can  be  shipped  to  the  United  States  that  the  existing  laws 
do  not  interfere  with  the  free  trading  in  these  goods,  particularly 
when  this  quantity  shows,  as  it  does  in  the  Government  figures,  that 
it  is  100  per  cent  greater  than  the  amount  of  the  same  kind  of  goods 
manufacture  in  the  United  States. 

The  American  manufacturers  under  these  conditions  certainly  do 
not  control  the  market,  but  are  simply  competitors  as  against  the 
much  greater  market  that  is  bringing  into  this  country  the  same 
kind  of  goods. 

On  the  6th  of  January  last  Mr.  August  Vogel  appeared  before  your 
committee,  stating  that  he  represented  the  tanners,  and  I  believe  he 
does  represent  some  of  them,  but  not  all  of  them,  and  in  his  cross- 
examination,  which  you  will  lind  on  page  87  of  No.  1  Tariff  Hearings, 
in  answer  to  Mr.  .lames,  is  the  following: 

Mr.  JAMKS.    il.,\v  niadi  cheaper  d<>  they  sell  that  .stuff  in  Canada  than  here? 

Mr.  Yor;  i-;i..   You  can  buy  f|uel>raeh<>  at  :}  cents  there,  and  it  costs  you  3|  cents  here. 

Mr.  JAMKS.   They  just  add  <>n  the  tariff? 
Mr.  YIH;EL.   They  just  add  the  tariff. 


SCHEDULE   A.  181 

PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  sell  it  in  competition  in  Canada? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir.  The  American  chestnut  extract  is  sold  in  Canada  in  com- 
petition with  the  world's  extracts,  even  so  far  that  they  manufacture  quebracho  ex- 
tract in  this  country  and  sell  it  over  there  in  competition  with  the  world's  markets. 
That,  Mr.  Hill,  would  seem  to  me  rather  a  good  indication  that  they  could  exist,  the 
fact  that  they  can  take  this  quebracho  extract  manufactured  in  this  country  and  sell 
it  over  in  Canada  in  competition  with  the  world's  extracts.  We  do  not  ask  to  go  as 
far  as  that. 

This  statement  is  not  only  misleading  but  is  not  true,  and  we  do 
not  believe  that  Mr.  Vogel  would  have  made  it  did  he  really  know  the 
actual  facts. 

The  vice  president  of  the  New  York  Tanning  Extract  Co.,  hi  answer 
to  this  statement,  has  written  a  letter  which  I  'inclose  and  which  proves 
very  positively  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  the  error  of  Mr.  Vogel, 
and  the  sales  manager  has  given  to  me  one  as  regards  my  company, 
which  also  disproves  the  statement. 

We  think  this  is  sufficient  to  correct  Mr.  Vogel's  error,  but  hi 
further  answer  to  this  statement,  Mr.  George  A.  Kerr,  of  Lynchburg, 
Va.,  a  member  of  this  committee  and  a  manufacturer  of  chestnut 
extract,  stated  to  Mr.  F.  B.  Harrison,  that  the  only  reason  they  could 
ship  liquid  chestnut  extract  to  Canada  was  owing  to  the  use  of  tank 
cars,  because  in  shipping  in  tank  cars  there  is  from  one-fourth  to  thirty 
one-hundredths  of  a  cent  saved  per  pound  in  the  cost  of  barrels,  hand- 
ling, and  freight  of  the  same,  and  this  difference  enables  them  to 
send  their  liquid  chestnut  extract  to  Canada;  Otherwise,  they  could 
not  do  so.  In  fact,  the  use  of  tank  cars  during  the  last  few  years  in 
the  tanning  extract  business,  has  grown  rapidly,  being  forced  upon 
the  manufacturers  in  order  to  have  a  saving,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Kerr, 
which  enables  them,  in  all  of  these  liquid  extracts,  to  compete  with  the 
imported  solid  extracts  at  the  present  prices. 

The  United  States  has  almost  entirely  lost  their  solid  extract 
business,  and  a  very  large  percentage  of  their  liquid  business  is  now 
being  carried  on  in  tank  cars,  and  but  for  this  we  fear  they  would 
have  lost  a  large  quantity  of  that  business  also. 

A  little  incident  for  further  proof  I  would  quote,  viz,  that  the  Stam- 
ford Manufacturing  Co.'s  representative,  Mr.  H.  Stacy  Smith,  of 
Newark,  N.  J.,  finding  that  some  of  his  customers  want  occasionally 
a  little  extract  in  the  solid  form,  and,  of  course,  wishing  it  at  the 
prevailing  price,  placed  us  in  a  position  where  we  could  not  furnish 
it  except  at  a  heavy  loss;  therefore  Mr.  Smith  asked  us  if  we  would  not 
allow  him  or  arrange  for  him  to  sell  the  imported  solid,  which  was 
granted;  and  Mr.  E.  C.  Klipstein,  agent  or  the  Forestal  Co.,  was 
communicated  with,  and  you  will  find  copy  of  his  letter  to  us,  the 
original  of  which,  of  course,  we  should  be  very  glad  to  show  if  you  wish 
it,  and  also  a  copy  of  Mr.  Smith's  reply,  which  we  can  also  show. 

The  price  fixed  upon  these  goods  by  Mr.  Klipstein  for  Mr.  Smith 
was  4  cents  per  pound  for  the  higher  grade  or  clarified  at  65  per  cent 
of  tan,  and  3|  cents  per  pound  for  the  ordinary  or  unclarified  at  65 
per  cent  of  tan,  f.  o.  b.  New  York. 

This  transaction  was  somewhat  humiliating,  but  made  necessary 
hi  order  that  we  could  retain  the  liquid-extract  trade  hi  the  tank  cars 
by  furnishing  what  solid  these  customers  required. 


182 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  20— DYEING  OR  TANNING  WOODS,  ETC. 

Silence  as  to  statements  made  against  us  might  be  construed  as  an 
admission  on  our  part  of  their  truthfulness,  and  we  therefore  stand 
ready  to  answer  any  statements  that  tend  to  question  the  truth  of 
anything  that  we  have  said. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

W.  W.  SKIDDY, 
For  W.  W.  Skiddy,  Geo.  A.  Kerr,  and  Oma  Case,  committee. 

Destination  of  principal  exports  from  Argentina  of  the  first  11  months  of  1912  to  Euro- 
pean, North  American,  and  Brazilian  ports. 


ppst.raticn. 

Quebracho. 

Wood. 

Extract. 

United  Kingdom  

Tons. 
6,562 
75,075 
18,707 
83,727 
11,085 
5,310 

Tffns. 
7,478 
28,192 
2,114 
11,954 
7,015 
2,257 
60 
9,276 

United  States  .                      .                 .                      .          

France  

Germany  

Belgium  

Italy  

Brazil.  .                    

Other  countries  

43,315 

Total  

243,  781 

68,346 

11  months: 
1911..        .                          ....           

394,835 
343,299 
266,162 
253,231 

77,115 
60,537 
54,034 
56,687 

1910  

1909                                                              .     .           .              ... 

1908..           

[Inclosure.] 

NEW  YORK  TANNING  EXTRACT  Co., 

New  York,  January  29,  1913. 
Mr.  W.  \V.  SKIDDY, 

President  Stamford  Manufacturing  Co.,  82  Wall  Street,  New  York. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  connection  with  tariff  hearings  on  Schedule  A,  held  in  Washington 
on  January  G,  we  note  that  on  page  87  of  pamphlet  No.  1  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  covering  these  hearings  that  Mr.  Vogel.  chairman  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Tanners'  Tariff  Committee  in  hie  cross-examination  is  reported  as  saying  in 
regard  to  the  sale  of  solid  quebracho  extract  in  Canada  that  ''they  manufacture 
quebracho  extract  in  this  country  and  sell  it  over  there  (in  Canada)  in  competition 
with  the  world's  markets." 

In  reply  to  this  assertion  we  wish  emphatically  to  state  that  as  far  as  our  own  business 
in  quebracho  extract  goes,  Mr.  Vogel' s  statements  are  absolutely  at  variance  with  the 
facts,  and  calculated  to  do  us  a  great  deal  of  harm  in  this  tariff  discussion.  It  is  wholly 
impossible  for  us  to  sell  any  of  our  solid  quebracho  extract  of  domestic  make  in  Canada 
in  competition  with  the  foreign-made  goods,  and  we  can  not  recall  an  instance  where 
we  have  ever  sent  a  pound  of  our  domestic-make  solid  quebracho  extract  into  that 
section.  We.  however,  have  a  number  of  customers  in  Canada  who  buy  of  us  foreign- 
made  solid  quebracho  extract,  which  we  sell  on  commission  and  ship  through  the 
United  States  to  Canada  in  bond,  but  all  of  this  extract  is  made  in  the  Argentine 
Republic. 

For  your  guidance  I  might  state  we  are  sending  a  small  amount  of  liquid  quebracho 
to  Canada,  but  are  getting  for  same  the  regular  market  price  charged  for  these  goods  in 
this  country.  This  business,  however,  is  not  important,  and  it  is  equally  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  witli  our  liquid  quebracho  extracts  in  Canada  with  foreign-made 
solid  extracts. 

The  facts  of  this  whole  matter  are  that  solid  quebracho  extract  can  not  be  made  in 
ih  is  country  from  the  raw  material  and  sold  at  prevailing  market  prices,  even  with  the 
present  duty,  at  any  profit  whatever,  and  the  business  in  liquid  quebracho  extracts 


SCHEDULE   A.  183 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

is  only  made  possible  by  reason  of  their  peculiar  efficiency  for  certain  purposes,  whereby 
the  customer  is  willing  to  pay  a  relatively  higher  price  for  them,  or  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  they  can  be  shipped  in  tank  cars  at  a  minimum  of  expense  for  handling, 
freight,  etc. 

We  can  not  too  strongly  urge  you  to  impress  the  Tariff  Committee  with  the  fact  that 
American  manufacturers  of  quebracho  are  to-day  in  a  most  hazardous  position  on  this 
tariff  matter,  and  that  any  reduction  whatever  in  the  duty  will  be  a  most  serious 
matter  for  this  business,  which  although  not  large  by  itself,  yet  as  a  branch  of  the 
tanning  extract  industry,  certainly  demands  proper  consideration. 

Mr.  Vogel  says  nothing  about  the  fact  that  even  though  the  duty  on  solid  quebracho 
extract  in  the  Payne  bill  was  by  reason  of  its  greater  strength  readjusted  to  differentiate 
it  from  the  liquid,  the  price  of  solid  extract  which  at  that  time  was  4J  to  4|  cents  per 
pound  has  in  the  meantime  dropped  to  3|  to  4  cents  per  pound.  This  drop  in  price 
has  been  caused  by  competition  of  foreign  makers  of  quebracho,  whose  consistant  aim, 
as  you  know,  has  been  to  force  American  manufacturers  out  of  business,  and  who 
apparently  have  been  able  under  present  conditions  of  prices  and  tariff  to  sell  their 
goods  here  at  a  profit.  The  present  duty  to-day  barely  gives  us  a  fighting  chance  in 
continuing  the  manufacture  of  quebracho  extracts  in  this  country,  and  any  reduction 
in  same  would  surely  force  us  to  give  up  the  business. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

NEW  YORK  TANNING  EXTRACT  Co., 
J.  STEVENS,  Vice  President  and  Treasurer. 

PARAGRAPH  21. 

Ethers:  Sulphuric,  eight  cents  per  pound;  spirits  of  nitrous  ether,  twenty 
cents  per  pound;  fruit  ethers,  oils,  or  essences,  one  dollar  per  pound;  ethers 
of  all  kinds  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifty  cents  per  pound; 
ethyl  chloride,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem:  Provided,  That  no  article  of 
this  paragraph  shall  pay  a  less  rate  of  duty  than  twenty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 
For  sulphuric  ethers,  see  also  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al,  page  .  49 

PARAGRAPH  22. 

Extracts  and  decoctions  of  logwood  and  other  dyewoods,  and  extracts  of 
bark,  such  as  are  commonly  used  for  dyeing  or  tanning,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  seven-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  extract  of  nutgalls, 
aqueous,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound  and  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
extract  of  Persian  berries,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  chlorophyll,  twenty 
per  centum  ad  valorem;  extracts  of  quebracho,  not  exceeding  in  density 
twenty-eight  degrees  Baumfi,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound;  exceeding  in 
density  twenty-eight  degrees  Baum6,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound; 
extracts  of  hemlock  bark,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound ;  extracts  of  sumac, 
and  of  woods  other  than  dyewoods,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
five-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  all  extracts  of  vegetable  origin  suitable 
for  dyeing,  coloring,  staining,  or  tanning,  not  containing  alcohol  and  not 
medicinal,  and  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifteen  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

For  nutgall  extract,  see  also  F.  Bredt  &  Co.,  page  54;  for  tanning  extracts,  see  also 
W.  W.  Skiddy,  page  .172 

DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

STATEMENT  OF  AUGUST  VOGEL,  OF  MILWAUKEE,  WIS.,  REPRE- 
SENTING THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  TANNERS. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  have  a  correction  made  in 
the  calendar.  I  am  not  interested  in  brewers'  malt,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  I  come  from  Milwaukee.  I  suppose  the  word  "Milwaukee" 
was  sufficient  to  carry  the  beer  sign  with  it,  but  I  desire  to  correct 
that,  and  also  that  it  is  not  "tunners,"  but  the  tanners  who  are 


184 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OB  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

appearing  before  you.     With  your  permission,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  read  the  brief  of  the  tanners  in  reference  to  this  schedule. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  has  allowed  you  15  minutes  with- 
out interruption.  Of  course  after  that  the  committee  may  cross- 
examine  you.  You  may  dispose  of  the  15  minutes  to  suit  yourself. 

Mr.  Vogel  read  the  brief  referred  to,  as  follows: 

On  behalf  of  the  National  Association  of  Tanners,  and  representing  a  majority  of 
the  tanning  interests  of  this  country,  we  respectfully  ask  the  attention  of  your  hon- 
orable committee  to  the  items  enumerated  below,  which  appear  under  Schedule  A 
of  the  Payne  Tariff  Act. 


Para- 
graph. 

Item. 

Duty. 

1 

2j  cents  per  pound. 

4 

J  to  f  cent. 

4 

i  to  I  cent. 

9 

J  cent. 

11 

2  cents. 

15 

30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

22 

j  cent  per  pound. 

22 

A  to  $  cent  per  pound. 

22 

J  cent. 

22 

|  cent. 

22 

1  cent. 

22 

Extract  sumac                                       

|  cent. 

22 

f  cent. 

22 

|  cent. 

35 

Linseed  oil                                                 

15  cents  per  gallon. 

40 

Cod  oil                                                                                          

8  cents. 

40 

Sod  oil                                .       .                 

8  cents. 

40 

Fish  oil                                                                .             

8  cents. 

71 

Bichromate  soda         

IJ  cents  per  pound. 

74 

Sal  soda          

J  cent. 

75 

Soda  ash                                                      

i  cent. 

79 

Sponges  

20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

81 

?4  per  ton. 

82 

Sumac,  ground                                                                                .   . 

i^j  cent  per  pound  . 

559 

Bark  

Free. 

290 

Degras                 •  -   -                                      

}  to  i  cent  per  pound 

1 

Lactic  acid 

2  to  3  cents  per  pound. 

1 

Sulphuric  acid  

}  cent. 

73 

Soda  sulphide 

|  to  f  cent. 

45 

Lampl  ilack  

25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

GO 

Bichromate  potash            

'2\  cents  per  pound. 

73 

Yellow  prussiate  soda 

2  cents 

09 

Soap  

20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

1 

Oxalic  acid          

2  cents  per  pound 

Cottonseed  oil  

Free 

The  above  equal  an  average  ad  valorem  duty  of  about  29  per  cent. 

Our  recommendation  in  reference  to  these  items  (all  of  which  enter  into  the  tanning 
of  leather)  is  that  the  rates  indicated  in  II.  R.  20182,  introduced  in  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  be  used  in  the  readjustment  of  duties  on  paid  items,  except  that  on  tanning 
extracts  other  than  chestnut  and  quebracho  we  suggest  one-eighth  cent  per  pound — all 
providing  that  there  is  to  be  no  important  change  made  in  the  present  low  duties  on 
leather.  The  reduction  of  duty  on  belting,  sole,  and  rough  leather  from  20  per  cent 
in  the  !>iiiLj;ley  Act  to  ~>  per  cent  in  the  Payne  Act,  a  reduction  of  75  per  cent,  has 
already  n  suited  in  a  marked  increase  in  importations  of  such  leathers,  as  illustrated 
in  table  below. 


SCHEDULE   A. 


185 


PARAGRAPH  22-DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Importations  of  belting,  sole,  and  rough  leather,  duty  5  per  cent  (record  incomplete  prior 

to  December,  1911). 

[Source:  Monthly  Summaries  of  Commerce  and  Finance.) 

Six  months  ending — 

December,  1911 $314,422 

January,  1912 406,406 

February,  1912 452,  565 

March,  1912 497,858 

April,  1912 5;%,  615 

May,  1912 626,  349 

June,  1912 706,  492 

July,  1912 806,  891 

August,  1912. 871,  398 

September,  1912 872,  528 

October,  1912 932,  200 

Referring  to  the  items  of  tanning  extracts,  which  are  the  most  important  items  to 
our  industry  of  those  listed  above,  we  argue  for  the  reduction  of  these  duties  on  the 
broad  ground  that  the  duties  are  unreasonably  high. 

The  approximate  cost  of  producing  liquid  chestnut  extract  in  this  country  is  1  cent 
per  pound  and  of  solid  chestnut  extract  2f  cents  per  pound.  A  duty  of  three-eighths 
cent  per  pound,  as  recommended  above,  equals  37.5  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  liquid 
chestnut  extract  and  13.6  per  cent  for  the  solid.  The  present  duty  on  chestnut  ex- 
tract of  five-eighths  cent  per  pound  equals  62.5  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  liquid 
extract  and  22.5  per  cent  for  the  solid.  These  duties  seem  to  us  manifestly  too  high, 
especially  in  view  of  the  low  rates  of  duties  (5  and  1\  per  cent)  on  the  various  kinds 
of  leather  in  which  these  extracts  are  used. 

The  imports  of  quebracho  extract  into  the  United  States  has  varied  from  seventy- 
five  to  one  hundred  million  pounds  per  year  during  the  past  three  years.  This  im- 
portation has  produced  a  revenue  for  the  Government  of  over  $500,000  annually,  but 
has  failed  to  materially  increase  the  production  of  quebracho  extract  in  the  United 
States,  which  is  limited  to  two  plants.  It  is,  therefore,  our  opinion  that  no  duty 
should  be  placed  on  quebracho,  except  as  may  be  found  necessary  for  revenue  pur- 
poses. 

We  would  call  to  your  attention  the  importance  of  this  matter  of  tanning  extracts  to 
the  leather  industry,  by  submitting  herewith  a  table  showing  the  relation  of  the 
value  of  tanning  extracts  to  the  value  of  the  leather  tanned  with  that  extract. 


Classes  of  sole  leather. 

Price  per 
pound  of 
leather. 

Tanning 
material 
cost  per 
pound  of 
leather. 

Equivalent 
percentage. 

Packer  slaughter  

Cents. 

27 

Centi. 
31 

13.0 

Tannery  run  dry  hide                                                 .                   

24 

3} 

14.6 

Dry  hide,  No.  2    

26 

34 

13.5 

Dry  hide,  No.  3  

24 

3i 

14.6 

Dry  hide  scabs      ..                                      

15 

34 

23.3 

Dry  hide  rejects  

22 

3J 

15.9 

Heads  

12 

li 

29.2 

Bellies  .  .      .                     .            

18 

34 

18.4 

This  table  is  based  upon  two  well-known  classes  of  sole  leather,  namely,  packer 
slaughter  leather  and  dry  hide  leather,  which  leathers  are  those  principally  used  in 
the  manufacture  of  low  and  medium  priced  shoes.  You  will  note  from  this  table  that 
the  value  of  the  tanning  extract  in  a  pound  of  leather  varies  from  13  to  29.2  per  cent 
of  the  value  of  the  leather  in  the  different  grades  enumerated .  In  fact,  the  duty  on  the 
extract  at  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound  equals  the  entire  duty  on  a  pound  of  the 
lowest  grade  leather  mentioned  (dry  hide  scabs).  Approximately,  it  takes  about  1 
pound  of  solid  extract  to  tan  1  pound  of  leather. 


186  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  22-DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Quebracho  extract  is  used  in  combination  with  domestic  chestnut  extract  to-  pro- 
duce the  proper  color  in  the  leather.  Lower  duties  on  foreign  extracts  will  tend  to 
increase  the  use  of  chestnut  extract,  and  this  will  conserve  our  hemlock  and  our  oak 


aWe8would  also  call  to  your  attention  that  our  principal-competitor  is  the  Canadian 
tanner  who  pays  no  duty  on  tanning  extracts.  He  has  cheaper  bark  and  labor  as 
low  or  lower  than  ours.  In  spite  of  the  competition  of  free  quebracho  and  other 
tanning  extracts  in  Canada,  American  extract  manufacturers  are  regularly  shipping 
quebracho  and  chestnut  extract  from  the  United  States  to  Canada,  demonstrating  that 
these  American  extract  manufacturers  can  compete  even  with  free  foreign  extract. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  TANNERS'  TARIFF  COMMITTEE. 
AUGUST  VOGEL,  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  desire  to  say  anything  further  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  have  nothing  to  say,  unless  questions  should  come 
from  the  other  side. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  with  reference  to  que- 
bracho. Do  you  think  the  duties  provided  hi  this  bill  should  remain 
hi  reference  to  the  extract  of  quebracho  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir.  I  recommend  that  it  be  reduced  from  three- 
fourths  to  three-eighths  of  a  cent. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  mean  the  duties  on  the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  On  the  raw  material  ?     I  do  not  quite  get  your  question. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  think  there  should  be  a  10  per  cent  duty  on 
what  has  always  been  free,  as  the  raw  material  of  the  industry  of 
making  extract  of  quebracho,  solely  for  the  sake  of  getting  revenue? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  The  duty  is  at  present  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound 
on  quebracho. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  understand  that,  but  I  am  talking  about  the  log  from 
which  it  is  made. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  The  log  will  remain  free. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  does  not  remain  free  under  this  bill,  if  it  is  peeled,  and 
it  can  not  be  brought  here  any  other  way.  There  is  a  duty  of  10  per 
cent  on  it. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  am  not  prepared  to  argue  that  point. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  a  very  vital  point,  is  it  not,  to  the  manufacturer 
of  quebracho  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  It  is,  no  doubt. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  possible  to  make  a  cut  of  50  per  cent  in  the  duty  on 
the  extract  and  add  10  per  cent  to  the  raw  material  and  expect  the 
industry  to  continue  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  This  gentleman  is  not  a  manufacturer  of  quebracho. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  understand  that;  he  is  appearing  in  behalf  of  the 
tanners,  and.  as  I  read  the  statement  here,  is  in  favor  of  continuing 
the  duties  on  the  raw  materials  put  down  in  the  chemical  bill  re- 
ported last  year. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  He  is  in  favor  of  the  reduction  made  in  the  chem- 
ical bill  reported  to  the  House  last  year  as  to  all  those  items  as  to 
which  material  reductions  were  made  in  that  bill. 

Mr.  HILL.  But  the  brief  says: 

Our  recommendation  in  reference  to  these  items  (all  of  which  enter  into  the  tan- 
ning of  leather)  is  that  the  rates  indicated  in  H.  R.  20182,  introduced  in  the  last 
session  of  Congress,  be  used  in  the  readjustment  of  duties  on  said  items,  except  that 
on  tanning  extracts,  oilier  than  chestnut  and  quebracho  we  suggest  one-eighth  cent 

per  pound. 


SCHEDULE   A.  187 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

And  so  it  goes  on.  Now,  do  you  recommend  that  the  log  be  sub- 
jected to  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  in  order  to  get  revenue? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then,  you  would  not  insist  upon  the  statement  in  this 
brief,  that  the  duties  provided  in  the  recent  chemical  bill  be  made 
the  basis  of  a  readjustment  in  that  industry  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state  to  Mr.  Vogel,  so  that  there  may  be  no 
misunderstanding,  that  the  law  was  changed  when  the  bill  went 
through  the  House  last  year,  so  that  the  word  "peeling"  was  added 
to  the  present  law.  It  has  been  suggested  that  to  put  the  word 
"peeling"  in  there  might  put  a  tax  on  the  log.  There  was  no  inten- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  committee  to  tax  the  raw  material. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  if  that  construction  of  the  word  should  put 
a  tax  on  the  raw  material,  it  would  be  corrected  at  the  proper  time. 
I  want  the  record  to  be  clear  as  to  that  point. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  am  very  glad  you  brought  up  the  point,  because  it 
has  been  brought  up  to  us,  and  we  took  it  for  granted  that  it  was  not 
to  be  taxed. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Has  the  tanning  business  been  pretty  prosperous  in 
the  United  States  in  the  last  three  or  four  years  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  It  has  been  pretty  fairly  so. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Pretty  universally  so,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  With  the  present  rate  of  duty  both  on  the  extract  and 
on  the  leather? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  advocate  taking  the  duty  off  the  sole  leather  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir;  we  do  not. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Suppose  the  duty,  which  is  now  5  per  cent,  were  taken 
off,  in  order  to  take  the  duty  off  shoes,  which  is  now  15  per  cent, 
do  you  think  that  would  add  to  the  prosperity  of  the  tanning  business 
in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  The  tanning  business  as  it  is  to-day  is  not  earning  a 
percentage  of  profit  which  compares  favorably  with  other  industries, 
as  far  as  my  own  knowledge  goes,  and  the  very  fact  that  these  imports 
of  sole  leather  are  increasing  so  rapidly,  as  they  are  doing,  is  a  very 
good  indication  that  the  Canadian  tanner  has  an  advantage  over  the 
American  tanner  at  the  present  time.  With  his  free  extracts  and 
his  labor  cost  no  higher,  he  has  undoubtedly  an  advantage  over  the 
American  tanner. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  might  get  along  without  any  duty;  is  that  the 
idea? 

Air.  VOGEL.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  so.  We  have  labor  cost, 
as  far  as  England  is  concerned,  fully  double.  I  can  submit  to  you 
reliable  figures,  which  we  will  be  pleased  to  give  you  when  the  leather 
schedule  comes  up,  showing  that  where  we  pay  $12  the  English- 
man and  German  pays  six. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  advocate  taking  the  duty  of  5  per  cent  off  sole 
leather  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  claim  we  are  justly  entitled  to  the  difference  of 
labor  cost  abroad  and  in  this  country. 


188  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  22— DYEING  OB  TANNING  EXTBACTS. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Will  you  advocate  taking  it  off? 

Mr.  VOGHL.  I  do  not  advocate  taking  it  off;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  in  another  bill 
which  passed  the  House  that  leather  was  put  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  understood  so;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  If  that  should  happen,  which  the  indications  are 
will  come  to  pass,  would  you  revise  your  recommendations  as  set  forth 
in  this  brief? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  certainly  should.  We  should  very  strongly  con- 
tend we  would  be  entitled  to  free  extracts. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  This  is  based  on  the  contingency  that  there  will 
be  no  change  in  the  leather  schedule  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir.  As  far  as  the  sole  leather  and  heavy  leather 
schedule  is  concerned,  that  is  our  contention. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  think  you  will  have  to  rewrite  it  very  shortly. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  is  a  fact,  is  it  not,  that  four  years  ago  the  tanning 
business  for  sole  leather  in  this  country  was  done  either  in  Germany 
or  by  what  is  called  the  Meat  Trust,  largely? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No;  I  can  not  agree  with  that  statement. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  was  shown  pretty  conclusively  four  years  ago  that 
that  was  the  case. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  have  not  seen  that  evidence. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  meat  people  were  buying  up  and  renting  the  tan- 
neries at  that  time  in  this  country? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  renting  a  good  many. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  had  control  of  a  good  portion  of  them? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  our  tanners  here  could  not  get  hides  from  the 
meat  people,  except  the  few  that  were  imported? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  You  will  notice  that  the  imports  of  hides  have  increased 
enormously  since  then,  to  the  benefit,  I  believe,  of  our  industry,  as 
well  as  to  the  people  at  large. 

Mr.  HILL.  In  considering  this  recommendation  for  a  continuance 
of  5  per  cent  duty  on  leather,  do  you  concurrently  recommend  the 
application  of  the  tanning  extract  rates  in  this  bill  which  was  passed 
last  session  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes.  sir:  we  do. 

Mr.  HILL.  Have  you  figured  how  much  advantage  there  would  be 
to  the  t turner  in  the  reduction  of  rates? 

Mr.  \OGEL.  }  es.  sir.  I  believe  our  brief  so  states,  if  you  will  read 
tliis  brief. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  strikes  me  that  the  reduction  in  the  tanning  extracts 
would  be  fully  equivalent  to  the  .">  per  cent,  making  practically  a  10 
per  cent  rate  now  as  compared  with  5  per  cent  under  the  present 
law,  with  these  articles  at  the  other  rate  of  duty.  Is  not  that 
correct  ( 

Mr.  Y(H;KL.  You  will  find  from  our  brief  that  we  state  that  the 
duty  is  equivalent  in  some  of  these  eases. 

Mr.  HILL.  But.  taking  the  trade  by  and  large,  if  these  extracts 
are  reduced  in  accordance  with  this  bill,  should  not  the  5  per  cent 
come  oil'  leather  ( 


SCHEDULE  A.  189 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir;  unless  you  wish  to  lower  your  standard  of 
American  labor,  and  unless  you  want  us  to  cut  our  laborers  down. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  are  you  not  willing  to  concede  to  the  manufac- 
turers of  the  tanning  extracts,  from  whom  you  buy,  the  same  cour- 
tesy you  ask  from  the  committee  on  your  finished  product  of  leather  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  do. 

Mr.  HILL.  No;  you  recommend  a  reduction. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Because  they  are  entirely  too  high;  because  they  run 
up  as  high  as  62 ^  per  cent,  and  we  are  down  to  5.  We  do  not  ask 
them  to  give  free  extracts.  We  simply  state  that  the  American  ex- 
tract manufacturer  is  to-day  selling  extracts  in  Canada,  out  of  which 
they  make  leather  competing  with  ours  in  this  country,  to  our  disad- 
vantage. We  do  not  ask  for  free  extracts.  We  believe  that  under 
the  three-eighths  cent  duty  they  can  carry  on  a  profitable  business. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Do  they  sell  it  cheaper  in  Canada  than  here  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Were  you  here  four  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Did  you  not  then  say  that  if  you  could  have  free  hides 
you  were  willing  to  have  free  leather? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  never  made  such  a  statement. 

Mr.  HILL.  Who  was  it  that  made  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  believe  that  was  made  by  a  gentleman  in  the  shoe 
industry. 

Mr.  HILL.  Did  not  the  tanners  unite  with  the  shoe  manufacturers 
in  that  request? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  did,  sir;  but  we  did  not  unite  in  this  statement. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  much  cheaper  do  they  sell  that  stuff  in  Canada 
than  here  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  You  can  buy  quebracho  at  3  cents  there,  and  it  costs 
you  3f  cents  here. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  just  add  on  the  tariff? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  They  just  add  the  tariff. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  sell  it  in  competition  in  Canada  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir.  The  American  chestnut  extract  is  sold  in 
Canada  in  competition  with  the  world's  extracts,  even  so  far  that 
they  manufacture  quebracho  extract  in  this  country  and  sell  it  over 
there  in  competition  with  the  world's  markets.  That,  Mr.  Hill, 
would  seem  to  me  rather  a  good  indication  that  they  could  exist, 
the  fact  that  they  can  take  this  quebracho  extract  manufactured  in 
this  country  and  sell  it  over  in  Canada  in  competition  with  the  world's 
extracts.  We  do  not  ask  to  go  as  far  as  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  proportion  of  the  leather  is  now  produced  by  the 
independent  tanners — strictly  independent,  I  mean — and  the  packers; 
half  and  half,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  should  say,  taking  the  industry  as  a  whole — in- 
cluding goatskins,  calfskins,  and  every  kind  of  leather  manufac- 
tured— that  the  packer  tanners  would  not  produce  over  15  per  cent 
of  the  total  output  and  that  the  independent  tanners  would  produce 
85  per  cent  of  tne  total  output.  When  you  consider  only  the  pro- 
duction of  heavy  leather,  the  packer's  proportion  is  larger. 

Mr.  HILL.  Immediately  after  hides  were  made  free  they  went  up, 
did  they  not  ? 


190  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Have  they  ever  got  back  to  where  they  were  when  the 
duty  of  15  per  cent  was  on  them? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  they  have. 

Mr.  HILL.  When? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  think  about  two  and  a  half  years  ago,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  1910,  the  prices  were  lower  than  before  the  repeal  of  the 
duty. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  About  a  year  after  the  bill  was  passed,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  About  a  year  after  the  bill  was  passed. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  price  stayed  there  overnight,  or  such  a  matter  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Not  at  all.  The  prices  continued  lower  during  1910 
and  1911  until  about  the  middle  of  1912.  For  three  or  four  months, 
in  the  early  part  of  January,  1911. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Then  they  went  up  again  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Then  they  went  up  again. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  they  stayed  up  since  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  much  higher  would  the  price  have  gone  if  the 
rate  had  stayed  on  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Approximately  13  per  cent. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  a  question  of  supply  and  demand,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Entirely  so. 

Mr.  HILL.  Tell  me,  is  the  same  grade  of  leather  higher  or  lower 
here  than  it  is  in  Europe  to-day? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  That  is  rather  a  difficult  comparison  to  make. 

Mr.  HILL.  Take  ordinary  sole  leather. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Ordinary  sole  leather,  what  we  call  dry  hide  leather, 
has  been  the  unprofitable  end  of  the  sole  leather  business  during  the 
past  year. 

Mr.  HILL.  "Why  is  it  the  unprofitable  end? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Because  the  tendency  has  been  to  use  union  and  oak 
leather,  a  lighter  colored  leather.  The  old-fashioned  hemlock  leather, 
which  at  one  time  was  used  so  largely  for  the  common  shoes  of  this 
country,  is  being  replaced  by  union  and  oak.  The  American  tanner 
had  the  advantage  over  his  foreign  competitors  in  making  the  old- 
fashioned  hemlock  leather  through  the  fact  that  the  hemlock  bark 
was  a  domestic  product.  If  you  will  look  up  the  census  of  the  Gov- 
ernment you  will  find  that  there  has  been  a  falling  off  of  about  20 
per  cent  in  the  consumption  of  hemlock  solo  leather  and  an  increase 
of  about  25  to  30  per  cent  in  the  consumption  of  union  and  oak.  In 
other  words  the  America u  tanner  is  losing  his  advantage  over  his 
foreign  competitor. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  do  not  get  my  point.  The  question  I  want  answered 
is  this:  The  ordinary  sole  leather,  mostly  in  use,  made  here  and 
mnde  abroad  from  tanning  extracts — is  that  much  higher  in  this 
country  to-day,  or  is  it  higher  in  Europe  than  it  is  in  this  country? 

Mr.  \  OGEL.  I  see  your  question;  the  answer  is  not  as  easy. 

Mr.  HILL.   It  either  must  he  higher  or  lower  or  the  same. 

Mr.  Krrrmx.   Let  him  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  "\  O(;F.!..  It  must  he  approximately  the  same,  otherwise  you 
could  not  have  this  interchange  of  sole  leather  that  is  going  on  at  the 
present  time. 


SCHEDULE   A.  191 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Mr.  HILL.  There  are  importations  every  day  made  by  the  hide  and 
leather  importers,  are  there  not  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  we  are  exporting  sole  leather  in 
competition  with  all  the  world — England,  Germany,  and  France? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  we  are  the  biggest  exporters  of  sole  leather  in 
the  world,  are  we  not  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  we  import  only  about  a  million  dollars'  worth 
a  year,  and  export  from  nine  to  twelve  million  dollars'  worth  a  year; 
is  not  that  a  fact  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KIT-CHIN.  And  we  are  making  sole  leather  as  cheaply  and 
selling  it  here  as  cheaply  as  it  is  sold  anywhere  in  the  world,  are 
we  not  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  for  this  nine  or  ten  million  dollars'  worth  of 
leather  we  export  yearly  to  foreign  countries  we  are  getting  a  higher 
price  abroad  than  we  are  getting  at  home  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  on  an  average  about  the  same  price. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  that  this  tariff  on  leather  amounts  to  very  little 
one  way  or  another,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  It  depends  on  what  you  call  "little,"  of  course. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  the  profit.  But  you  are  paying  now  three- 
quarters  of  a  cent  on  your  extract  and  still  making  it  cheaper  and 
selling  it  cheaper  than  any  people  in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So,  if  you  reduce  your  tariff  on  your  extract  here 
you  could  get  along  with  free  leather  all  right,  could  you  not  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sijr;  we  could  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  are  now  underselling  the  world  in  sole  leather 
with  a  tariff  on  this  stuff? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  purposely  called  your  attention  to  the  important  fact 
that  since  1911  the  imports  into  this  country  were  very  rapidly 
increasing,  as  shown  by  this  table  which  I  have  submitted  to  you. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  They  have  trebled,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Yes,  sir;  they  have  trebled  in  that  time. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  your  exports 'have  grown  very  rapidly,  too  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir ;  they  have  not  grown  in  proportion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  we  are  being  called  away  from  the 
chemical  schedule  in  this  hide  proposition. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  was  not  prepared  to  argue  this  question  to-day. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  would  like  to  know,  in  that  connection,  whether  we 
are  exporting  sole  leather  in  any  quantity  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  are;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  not  the  most  of  the  leather  the  fancy  leathers*  and 
of  a  higher  grade  of  manufacture  than  sole  leather  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  have  always  exported  large  quantities  of  glazed 
kid  from  this  country. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  record  shows  we  exported  about  $20,000,000 
worth  of  glazed  kid  last  year,  and  of  sole  leather  over  nine  millions. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  of  the  higher  grades  of  leather  we 
make  the  best  in  the  world  ? 


192  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OB  TANNING  EXTBACTS. 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  hope  we  do. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  We  do;  that  is  the  reason  we  are  exporting  it.  Why 
not  have  the  whole  truth  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  He  has  told  too  much  about  it  now. 

Mr.  JAMES.  We  do  not  want  to  give  it  all  to  you  at  once.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  sell  rough  leather  in  Canada? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  We  do  not. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Not  at  all  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Not  to  my  knowledge  is  any  rough  leather  being  sold 
from  this  country  to  Canada. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  sell  sole  leather  in  Canada  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir;  it  is  impossible  to  sell  any  sole  leather  in 
Canada. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Why  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  Because  they  are  evidently  able  to  buy  cheaper  at 
home. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Do  you  sell  abroad  any  leather  cheaper  than  you 
sell  at  home  ? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir;  we  do  not.     We  never  trade  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  You  sell  abroad  cheaper  than  you  do  at  home? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  get  back  to  the  chemical  schedule 
Mr.  Vogel,  have  you  anything  further? 

Mr.  VOGEL.  I  'have  nothing  further  to  say.  I  am  very  much 
obliged  to  you  gentlemen  for  your  attention. 

STATEMENT  OF  M.  S.  ORTH,  REPRESENTING  MARDEN,  ORTH  & 
HASTINGS,  BOSTON,  MASS.,  DEALERS  IN  TANNING  EXTRACTS; 
AND  THE  BASIC  EXTRACT  CO.,  BASIC  CITY,  VA.,  MANUFAC- 
TURERS OF  CHESTNUT  EXTRACT. 

Mr.  ORTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  reference  to  Schedule  A,  paragraph 
22,  1  think  that  the  tariff  should  be  revised  downward  on  materials 
where  the  present  rates  prohibit  importation  and  also  on  materials 
used  in  American  factories  -raw  materials  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  to  be  remamifactured. 

I  think  that  logical  American  industries  should  be  moderately  pro- 
tected against  cheaper  foreign  labor,  and  I  believe  in  tariff  for  revenue. 

Changes  proposed  in  the  act  of  1909: 

Paragraph  22,  to  read : 

Kxtrvts  i if  nutLralls  ami  of  {Vivian  berries.  1  cent  per  pound;  extracts  of  quebracho, 
of  chc.-tni  I  wood,  and  of  oak  wood,  three-eights  of  1  cent  per  pound;  extracts  of 
lieinlnck  1  .irk,  of  sumac,  and  extracts  and  decoctions  of  logwood  and  other  dye  woods, 
extract.-  o  barks  and  of  woods  oilier  than  dye  woods,  such  as  are  commonly  used  for 


>i  vegetable  origin  suitable  for  dyeing,  coloring, 
FtainiiiL*.  '  r  tanninir.  all  the  fnreiroiii'jr  nm  containing  alcohol,  not  medicinal,  and  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  act  or  in  the  first,  section  of  the  act  cited  for  amendment, 
onc-civhi  h  i  if  I  cent  per  p'  iinid. 

My  reasons  I'or  the-e  changes  are: 

I  he-  rate-;  of  duty  >pe.  ilird  in  paragraph  22,  Schedule  A,  act  of 
1909,  arc  practically  prohibitive  on  all  tanning  extracts  except  que- 
bracho, preventing  or  greatly  curtailing  the  importation  of  Joreign- 
made  extracts  of  foreign-grown  woods,  barks,  acorns,  and  nuts  which 
do  not  grow  in  this  country,  but  which  are  valuable  to  and  greatly 


SCHEDULE   A.  193 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

needed  by  our  tanners.  A  reduction  of  the  rate  of  duties  would 
greatly  increase  the  importation  of  these  foreign  extracts  and  thereby 
provide  great  revenue  and  help  conserve  the  hemlock  and  oak  bark  of 
of  the  United  States. 

(2)  Paragraph  22  is  too  complex  in  its  specifications,  causing    un- 
necessary work  for  the  collectors  and  appraisers.     House  bill  20182, 
paragraph  31,  is  much  simpler.     It  would  seem  unnecessary  for  the 
collector  or  appraiser  to  have  to  determine  whether  an  extract  was 
made  from  the  root  or  wood  or  bark  or  fruit  of  a  tree. 

(3)  These  reduced  duties  would  hurt  no  one  in  the  United  States, 
except  one  or  possibly  two  quebracho  extract  manufacturers,  located 
in  Connecticut  and  New  York,  and  their  business  is  too  illogical  to 
endure.     It  requires  three  or  four  tons  of  quebracho  wood  to  produce 
one  ton  of  quebracho  extract.     This  quebracho  wood  grows  in  the 
interior  of  South  America  and  has  to  be  transported  to  New  York 
and  Connecticut  if  it  is  to  be  made  into  extract  by  these  two  factories. 
The  freight  on  a  ton  of  wood  from  South  America  to  New  York  is  as 
much  as  it  is  on  a  ton  of  extract.     This  freight  is  about  $3.50  to  $4 
per  ton.     Consequently  these  factories  are  handicapped  to  the  extent 
of  $7  to  $12  a  ton  of  extract  compared  with  the  factories  in  South 
America.     In  addition  to  this  handicap  the  American  labor  is  50  to 
100  per  cent  higher  than  the  South  American  labor.     Obviously, 
therefore,  the  business  is  an  illegal  one  and  it  is  not  fair  to  the 
American   tanner  to  make  him  pay  a  high  duty    (amounting   to 
$547,850.24  in  1912)  to  protect  these  two  American  factories. 

These  reduced  duties  would  benefit  many:  First,  the  American 
tanning  industry  (comprising  some  600  tanneries),  than  which  industry 
there  is  none  in  the  United  States  which  requires  such  a  large  casn 
outlay,  such  a  long  process  of  manufacture,  with  as  great  risks  of  no 
profits  and  as  little  chance  for  a  large  profit.  Second,  the  Govern- 
ment, by  increased  revenue.  Third,  the  20  or  30  chestnut  extract 
manufacturers  of  the  United  States.  They  would  be  benefited  by  an 
increased  consumption  of  and  a  greater  demand  for  their  chestnut 
extract.  This  increased  consumption  would  be  brought  about  by 
the  fact  that  the  greater  the  quantity  of  imported  extracts  that  are 
used  the  greater  the  quantity  of  chestnut  extracts  used.  One  is 
not  a  substitute  for  the  other,  but  together  thev  are  substitutes  for 
oak  and  hemlock  barks.  The  best  proof  of  this  contention  is  the 
fact  that  the  Canadian  tanners,  who  have  free  extracts  of  all  kinds, 
and  cheaper  barks  than  the  United  States  tanners,  use  large  quan- 
tities of  chestnut  extract  from  the  United  States,  which  costs  them 
more  than  it  costs  our  tanners  because  the  freight  rates  are  higher. 
They  use  these  large  quantities  of  chestnut  extract  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  their  quebracho  extract  costs  them  three-fourths  cent  per 
pound  less  than  it  costs  the  American  tanners  and  their  other  im- 
ported extracts  cost  them  from  15  to  30  per  cent  less.  This  proves 
conclusively  that  the  imported  extracts  are  used  with  chestnut 
extract  and  that  if  we  increase  the  use  of  imported  extracts  we  will 
increase  the  use  of  chestnut  extract  proportionately. 

I  have  suggested  three-eighths  cent  per  pound  on  quebracho  ex- 
tract instead  of  a  lower  rate,  because  I  think  that  just  as  much  would 
be  imported  at  three-eighths  cent  as  at  a  lower  rate,  and  the  revenue 
derived  would  be  greater. 
78959°— VOL  1—13 13 


194  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

I  have  suggested  three-eighths  cent  per  pound  on  chestnut  wood 
and  oak  wood  extracts  instead  of  a  lower  rate  merely  to  protect  the 
American  chestnut  extract  manufacturers  against  a  dumping  of  Italian 
and  Saxonian  chestnut  and  oak  extracts  onto  this  market  at  times  of 
depression  in  those  countries.  Such  a  condition  might  never  arise, 
but  inasmuch  as  no  chestnut  extract  is  imported  into  this  country 
under  ordinary  conditions,  and  inasmuch  as  the  American  chestnut 
extract  industry  is  a  worthy  one  and  very  beneficial  to  the  mountain- 
ous sections  of  our  Southern  States,  where  its  factories  are  located,  I 
think  it  should  be  protected  against  such  a  possible  condition. 

To  show  the  necessity  of  these  lower  rates  of  duties,  the  apparent 
benefits  to  be  derived  from  them  by  the  American  tanners,  and  the 
increased  revenue  they  would  furnish  to  the  Government,  I  give  below 
three  tables. 

(1)  The  quantity  and  value  of  domestic  barks  consumed  in  the 
United  States  in  the  years  1900  and  1909  (the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture informed  me  that  no  record  has  been  kept  since  1909)  and  the 
quantity  and  value  of  tanning  extracts  consumed  in  the  United  States 
in  the  years  1900  and  1909. 

(2)  The  quantity  and  duties  collected  thereon  of  tanning  extracts 
imported  into  the  United  States  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1909 
(the  last  year  under  the  Dingley  tariff)  and  the  year  ending  June 
30,  1912. 

(3)  My  estimate  of  the  probable  importations  and  revenues  there- 
from under  the  duties  proposed  by  me  in  this  brief  for  the  year 
ending  June  30,    1915,   compared  with   the  importations   and   the 
revenue  therefrom  for  the  year  ending  June  30,   1912,  under  the 
Payne-Aldrich  bill. 

TABLE  1. — Tanning  materials  consumed  in  the  United  States. 


Kind. 

1909 

1900 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

Quantity. 

Cost. 

RAW   MATERIALS. 

Domestic: 
Hemlock  bark  

Tons. 
698,365 
324.070 
18,527 

18,925 
18,000 
1,023 

$6,434.848 
3,533,862 
65,152 

514,169 
534,727 
42,992 

Cords. 
1,170,131 
445,934 

$7,747,242 
3,174,995 

Oak  bark 

Chestnut  wood  

Imported: 
Mangrove  bark  

Myrobolans  nuts  

All  other  

Total  

1,078,910 

11,125,750 

1,616,065 

10,922,237 

Domestic:               EXTRACTS. 
Hemlock  bark.  .  . 

Pounds. 

10,862,540 

276,436 
3,613,344 
703,805 

Pounds. 
6,406,000 

150,914 

Chestnut  wood  

184,307,498 

Oak  bark  

36,930.861 

27,115.500 

550,065 

Total  

232,100,899 

4,693,585 

33,521,500 

700,979 

Imported  or  from  imported  material: 
Quebracho  extract 

147,109,443 
1.401,008 
1.101.303 
2.  041,  001 
1.0.84,171 
350  535 

5,877,989 
43  566 

10,180,000 

292,133 

Mangrove  bark  extract  

Myrobolan  extract   .  . 

37.  571 
133,  765 
43,757 
16.167 
18.022 
14,  755 

(Jambier  extract  .. 

(?) 

(?) 

Qurrmos  extract 

Sumac  extract 

(?) 

(?) 

Valonia  extract 

243.536 
785,996 

All  other  extracts 

Total  

1  "1  716  993 

6,185.572 

10,180.000 

292,  133 

Total  all  extracts.. 

386.817,892 

10,879,157 

43,701,500 

993,112 

SCHEDULE   A. 


195 


PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

Compared  with  1900,  the  quantity  consumed  in  1909  of  domestic 
barks  decreased  36  per  cent. 

Compared  with  1900,  the  quantity  consumed  in  1909  of  domestic 
extracts  increased  592  per  cent. 

Compared  with  1900,  the  quantity  consumed  in  1909  of  imported 
extracts  increased  1,420  per  cent. 

This  shows  that  imported  extracts  are  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  preservation  of  our  tanning  industry. 

TABLE  2. — Duties  collected  on  tanning  extracts  imported  during  years  ending  June  SO, 

1912,  and  June  SO,  1909. 


19 

12 

19 

09 

Quantity. 

Duties. 

Quantity. 

Duties. 

Quebracho  extract: 
Less  than  28  

3.579.050 

$17,895.25 

Exceeding  28  .  

70,660,665 

529,954.99 

99,108,284 

$495,541.42 

Logwood  and  other  dyewood  

2,463,422 

15,396.39 

3,463,582 

30,306.36 

All  other  wood  extracts  ..   

82,226 

513.91 

5,006 

31.29 

All  other  bark  extracts  

2,439,966 

21,349.70 

4,339,596 

37,971.45 

Sumac  extracts         

1,389,733 

8,685.83 

1,232,530 

7,705  21 

All  other  vegetable  origin  

1,272,670 

6,615.60 

Total  

81,887,732 

600,411.67 

109,517,412 

571,555.73 

SUMMARY. 

Quantity  imported,  1912,  25  per  cent  less  than  in  1909;  duties  collected,  1912,  5  per  cent  greater  than  in 
1909;  quantity  quebracho,  1912,  25  per  cent  less  than  in  1909;  duties  on  quebracho,  1912, 10  per  cent  greater 
than  in  1909;  quantity  other  extracts,  1912,  26  per  cent  less  than  in  1909;  duties  on  other  extracts,  1912,  31 
per  cent  less  than  in  1909;  quebracho  in  1912,  90.66  per  cent  of  total  quantity  and  91.24  per  cent  of  total 
duty  collected;  quebracho  in  1909, 90.49  per  cent  of  total  quantity  and  86.70  per  cent  of  total  duty  collected. 

This  proves  that  the  higher  rates  charged  under  the  Payne-Aldrich 
bill  on  tanning  extracts  prohibited  the  importation  of  some  extracts 
and  greatly  restricted  the  importation  of  others.  And,  in  the  mean- 
time, the  chestnut  extract  manufacturing  business  of  the  United 
States  has  been  poorer  than  ever  before — a  less  active  demand  and 
with  smaller  profits. 

TABLE  3. — Estimated  importations  for  year  ending  June  15,  1915,  of  tanning  extracts  and 
revenue  therefrom  under  rates  proposed  in  this  brief,  compared  with  the  importations  and 
revenue  for  year  ending  June  30,  1912. 


Year  June  30,  1915. 

Year  June  30,  1912. 

Quantity. 

Duties. 

Quantity. 

Duties. 

Quebracho  extract  

Pounds. 
150,000,000 
1,000,000 

2,000,000 
4,000,000 
1,000,000 
10,000  000 
40,000,000 
6,000,000 
12,000,000 

$562,500.00 
3,  750.  00 

2,500.00 
5,000.00 
1,250.00 
12,500.00 
50,000.00 
7,500.00 
15,000.00 

Pounds. 
74,239,715 

$547,850.24 

Chestnut  and  oak  extract    ...          ... 

All  other  extracts,  comprising  — 
Sumac  extracts 

1,389,733 
2,  463,  423 

8,685.83 
15,396.39 

Logwood  and  dvewood  extracts       

Hemlock  bark  extracts  

Myrobolans  extracts 

Mangrove  cutch,  extracts      

Valonea  extracts  

All  other                            

3,  794,  902 

28,  479.  21 

226,000,000 

660,000.00 

81,887,772 

600,411.67 

196  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

This  estimates  an  increase  in  importations  of  about  176  per  cent 
for  1915  over  1912,  which  may  seem  too  optimistic  to  you.  But  it  is 
not  too  optimistic  when  you  consider  that  the  present  rates  of  duty 
are  practically  prohibitive  on  all  but  quebracho  extract,  and  restrictive 
on  it,  as  shown  by  Table  2,  where  the  quantity  of  extracts  imported 
in  1912  are  shown  to  be  25  per  cent  less  than  in  1909,  although  Table  1 
shows  that  between  the  years  1900  and  1909  the  quantity  of  im- 
ported extracts  consumed  increased  1,420  per  cent  and  the  quantity 
of  domestic  extracts  consumed  increased  592  per  cent,  while  the 
quantity  of  domestic  barks  consumed  decreased  36  per  cent. 

This  proves  that  imported  extracts  are  an  absolute  necessity  and 
that  at  a  low  rate  of  duty  an  enormous  quantity  would  be  imported 
(and  thereby  conserve  our  bark  supply). 

This  estimate  also  shows  only  10  per  cent  increase  in  the  revenue 
from  duties  over  the  year  1912,  but  it  shows  an  increase  of  about  80 
per  cent  more  than  your  committee  estimated  would  be  the  revenue 
under  House  bill  20182.  (See  H.  Kept.  No.  326,  p.  35.) 

METHODS   ANB    EXPERIENCE    RELIED    UPON    IN    MAKING   MY   ESTIMATE. 

All  the  figures  submitted  of  importation  have  been  taken  from 
Government  documents. 

In  addition  to  being  a  chestnut  extract  manufacturer,  I  am  one 
of  the  largest  dealers  in  other  tanning  extracts,  imported  and  domes- 
tic, and  in  oils  and  greases  used  by  the  tanners.  I  meet  the  tanners 
constantly  and  study  their  business  as  well  as  mine  and  think  I  am 
competent  to  judge  of  the  probable  increase  hi  the  importation  of 
foreign  extracts  for  this  industry  under  lower  duties. 

Besides,  I  am  familiar  with  the  foreign  supplies  of  crude  tanning 
materials.  The  tremendous  quantities  available  in  India,  Borneo, 
Africa,  and  South  America  which  could  be  sent  here  in  the  shape  of 
concentrated  extracts  where  they  can  not  be  profitably  sent  here  as 
crude  tanning  materials  on  account  of  the  high  freight  rates. 

In  addition,  a  study  of  the  tables  above  submitted  to  you  shows 
the  probable  effect  of  a  lower  duty.  These  tables  show  that  the 
quantity  of  imported  extracts  increased  1,420  per  cent  from  1900  to 
1909;  that  the  quantity  decreased  25  per  cent  from  1909  to  1912 
under  the  Payne- Aldrich  bill,  which  raised  the  duty  on  quebracho 
extract  50  per  cent. 

Furthermore,  every  one  in  the  industry  knows  that  our  hemlock 
and  oak  bark  supply  is  diminishing  year  by  year,  and  that  imported 
extracts,  in  increasing  quantities,  are  essential  for  the  tanning 
industry. 

To  sum  up— 

There  can  be  only  two  possible  reasons  why  there  should  be  any 
duty  at  all  on  imported  tanning  extracts. 

First.  For  revenue. 

Second.  To  protect  the  domestic  chestnut  extract  manufacturers. 

[  have  given  you  my  best  opinion  as  to  how  to  obtain  the  greatest 
revenue — three-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  quebracho  extract — and 
on  chestnut  wood  and  oak  wood  extract — and  one-eighth  of  a  cent  per 
pound  on  all  other  tanning  extracts. 


SCHEDULE   A.  197 

PARAGRAPH  22— DYEING  OR  TANNING  EXTRACTS. 

I  have  also  presented  my  argument  why  low  duties  and  large 
importations  of  foreign  extracts — other  than  chestnut  extract — will 
help  the  domestic  chestnut  extract  manufacturers. 

No  doubt  some  of  the  chestnut  extract  manufacturers  do  not 
agree  with  me.  In  1908  it  was  stated  to  this  committee  that  1904 
was  the  last  profitable  year  in  the  chestnut  extract  industry;  that 
money  had  been  lost  every  year  thereafter  to  1908;  and  that  they 
would,  have  to  go  out  of  business  unless  the  duties  on  foreign  extracts 
were  increased  materially. 

I  made  extremely  satisfactory  profits  in  my  extract  plant  during 
those  years,  1905  to  1908,  much  greater  profits  than  since  the  Payne- 
Aldrich  bill  increased  the  duty  on  quebracho  extract  50  per  cent. 
In  fact  the  year  1912  was  the  poorest  year  we  have  ever  had  in  the 
chestnut  extract  industry,  and  incidentally  the  quebracho  extract 
importations  in  1912  were  the  smallest  for  many  years. 

I  am  convinced  that  high  duties  are  a  detriment  to  the  chestnut 
extract  industry,  and,  as  a  chestnut  extract  manufacturer,  I  want  to 
see  the  duties  on  foreign  extracts  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  point 
compatible  with  a  good  return  of  revenue. 

JOHN   CAMPBELL   &    CO.,    NEW   YORK,    N.    Y.,    NATURAL   AND 
ARTIFICIAL    DYESTUFFS,    EXTRACTS,    AND    CHEMICALS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  15, 1913. 
Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

CJiairman,  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Following  the  advice  contained  in  your  letter  of  Jan- 
uary 8,  1913,  we  are  taking  the  liberty  of  bringing  before  the  notice 
of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  an  item  of  the  Chemical 
Schedule,  which,  if  not  already  considered,  we  think  should  be  sub- 
jected to  the  removal,  or  at  least  a  reduction,  of  the  import  duty. 
We  refer  to  logwood  and  hematine  extracts,  pastes  and  crystals,  also 
fustic  extract,  of  which  we  are  importers,  and  upon  which  there  is 
now  a  specific  duty  of  seven-eighths  cent  per  pound. 

Our  reasons  for  requesting  this  revision  are: 

In  the  first  place,  the  products  mentioned  are  in  the  nature  of  raw 
products  used  in  the  textile,  leather,  and  other  industries  and  as  such 
should  not  be  subjected  to  a  duty  charge,  as  this  proves  a  heavy 
handicap  on  the  manufacturers  when  attempting  to  compete  with 
foreign  manufacturers  in  the  open  markets  of  the  world. 

Secondly,  we  consider,  since  a  large  majority  of  the  trade,  not  only 
of  this  country  but  of  the  world,  in  these  products,  is  in  the  hands 
of  a  holding  company  in  the  United  States  controlling  factories  in 
this  country,  France,  Great  Britain,  and  the  West  Indies;  and  able, 
we  believe,  by  reason  of  their  large  purchases  to  more  or  less  govern 
the  price  of  the  raw  materials,  logwood  and  fustic,  from  which  these 
goods  are  manufactured,  that  no  duty  is  necessary  to  protect  the 
industry  which  is  in  such  a  strong  position. 

The  customs  statistics  show  the  importations  of  these  products 
during  the  last  year  to  be  about  5,000  barrels,  a  very  small  proportion 
of  the  total  consumption,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  labor  cost 


198  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

of  the  manufacture  is  relatively  small  we  feel  that  no  injustice  will 
be  inflicted  by  the  removal  or  considerable  reduction  of  the  duty  and 
therefore  respectfully  request  that  our  petition  may  receive  such  con- 
sideration as  is  its  due. 

Yours  very  truly,  JOHN  CAMPBELL  &  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  23. 

Gelatin,  glue,  isinglass  or  fish  glue,  including  agar-agar  or  Japanese 
isinglass,  and  all  fish  bladders  and  fish  sounds  other  than  crude  or  dried 
or  salted  for  preservation  only,  valued  at  not  above  ten  cents  per  pound;  two 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound ;  valued  at  above  ten  cents  per  pound  and  not 
above  thirty-five  cents  per  pound,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  valued 
above  thirty-five  cents  per  pound,  fifteen  cents  per  pound  and  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  gelatin  in  sheets,  emulsions,  and  all  manufactures  of 
gelatin,  or  of  which  gelatin  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  glue 
size,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

STATEMENT  OF  LOUIS  S.  BRIGHAM,  REPRESENTING  THE  BRIG- 
HAM  SHEET  GELATIN  CO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Louis  S.  Brigham,  Randolph,  Vt.  We  filed  a  orief 
with  the  clerk,  and  I  wish  to  make  one  change.  The  word  "color- 
less" should  be  changed  to  "colored." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  allowed  you  15  minutes. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  represent  the  Brigham  Sheet  Gelatin  Co.,  a  com- 
pany that  takes  raw  gelatin  and  converts  it  into  sheets.  These  sheets 
are  not  used  for  edible  or  adhesive  purposes.  They  do  not  enter  into 
the  cost  of  living  in  any  way  whatever.  The  business  was  started  in 
1876  and  has  grown  slowly  and  steadily  ever  since.  In  1896  we  found 
that  vast  quantities  of  sheet  gelatin  were  imported  into  New  York 
City  at  a  price  that  seriously  crippled  our  business.  Since  then  we 
have  competed  against  German  gelatin  and  the  prices  have  been 
steadily  driven  downward.  Last  year  we  found  that  immense  quan- 
tities of  sheet  gelatin  were  imported  into  New  York  and  Baltimore 
at  a  price  very  much  lower  than  ours.  That  naturally  led  to  an  inves- 
tigation. Comparing  the  prices  of  imported  sheet  gelatin  with  ours, 
it  was  almost  impossible  to  see  how  sheet  gelatin  could  be  made  and 
sold  in  this  country,  with  all  the  transportation  charges  and  the  duty 
paid,  at  the  prices  paid  by  box  makers,  who  used  these  sheets  in  vast 
quantities. 

Therefore  we  wish  to  have  sheet  gelatin  classified  in  the  tariff  by 
itself,  the  same  as  gelatin  bandeau,  or  gelatin  artificial  flowers.  It 
has  always  been  classified  as  a  manufacture  of  gelatin  and  carries  a 
duty  of  .'-55  per  cent.  Gelatin  bandeau  carries  a  duty  of  60  per  cent. 
Gelatin  flowers  carry  a  duty  of  50  per  cent.  Last  spring  the  duty  on 
raw  gelatin  was  raised  10  per  cent  more  through  a  technicality,  but 
that  technicality  was  really  011  the  word  "sheet." 

I  have  a  sample  hero  of  what  the  technicality  is  or  shows.  That 
[indicating]  is  called  a  sheet  of  gelatin.  So  is  that  [indicating]. 
That  carries  10  per  cent  more  duty  than  gelatin  in  little  pieces  or 
Hakes.  1  ou  can  hardly  see  them  in  my  hand  [indicating].  As  soon 


SCHEDULE  A.  199 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

as  this  duty  of  10  per  cent  was  put  on  gelatin  like  that  [indicating! 
the  price  of  the  product  went  up  10  per  cent  to  me.  But  when  I 
analyzed  gelatin  like  that  [indicating]  for  all  its  qualities,  and  made 
the  price  on  it,  I  found  that  gelatin  made  in  this  country,  which  cor- 
responds to  this  foreign  gelatin  in  every  way,  carried  just  about  the 
same  price.  This  is  the  gelatin  whicn  we  make  [indicating],  and 
that  [indicating]  is  what  we  call  a  sheet.  You  see  it  is  very  much 
different  from  anything  like  that  [indicating]. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  this  used  for? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  This  particular  sheet  of  gelatin,  this  grade,  is  used 
for  wrapping  candy  boxes  and  for  various  antiseptic  purposes.  Tooth 
brushes  ana  toothpicks  are  inclosed  in  a  little  wrapper  like  that 
[indicating];  also  high-grade  cigars. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  tariff  on  that  now? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  tariff  on  this  is  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  it  on  that  larger  piece  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  This  piece  [indicating  piece  of  gelatin]  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  tariff  on  that  is  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  you  say  it  was  increased  10  per  cent  on  a  tech- 
nicality? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  On  the  word  "sheet."  I  should  call  it  a  tech- 
nicality. Before,  it  carried  a  duty  of  25  per  cent.  When  that  word 
"sheet"  was  introduced,  then  these  two  [indicating]  carried  the 
same  duty. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  was  the  effect  on  the  one  that  you  hold  in  your 
right  hand  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  effect  on  this  one  [indicating]  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes;  by  the  duty. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  They  made  me  pay  10  per  cent  more  for  my  raw 
stock.  You  understand,  I  use  this  product  [indicating]  and  convert 
it  into  a  product  like  that  [indicating]. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  have  no  increased  duty  to  pay  on  the  finished 
product? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  No,  sir;  that  remains  still  at  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  was  the  effect  of  the  increased  duty  on  the  raw 
material  which  you  have  there? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  increased  duty  on  this  [indicating  a  sheet  of 
gelatin]  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  It  makes  me  pay  the  importer  10  per  cent  more  for 
it.  It  amounted  to  about  three-fourths  of  1  cent  a  pound. 

Mr.  JAMES.  It  increases  the  price  of  that  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  investigated  the  prices  of  labor  up 
there  in  Vermont.  My  minimum  wage,  in  my  little  industry,  is 
$7.50  a  week,  paid  to  women.  It  is  impossible  for  them  to  live  on 
any  less  than  that  up  there.  The  maximum  wage  paid  to  men  in 
Germany  I  find  from  the  consular  reports  is  $4  a  week.  They  work 
10  hours  a  day,  or  60  hours  per  week.  My  help  works  9  hours  a  day. 

Mr.  Dixox.  Can  you  refer  us  to  the  consular  report  giving  those 
figures  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  dated  January  26,  1911.  It  is  the 
report  of  Consul  General  Frank  Dillingham,  at  Coburg,  on  technical 


200  TARIFF  HEABIKGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

articles.  The  wage  to  boys  is  from  $2.14  to  $2.86;  to  men  it  is  $3.57 
to  $4.  That  is  as  near  to  gelatin  as  I  could  find.  Even  if  it  came  in 
under  the  head  of  lithographic  printing  or  something  like  that  the 
wages  are  not  higher.  But  that  does  not  conflict  with  our  business. 

Mr.  HILL.  Does  your  business  require  the  hiring  of  skilled  labor  ? 

Mr.  BBIQHAM.  I  should  not  call  it  skilled  labor.  I  have  some  girls 
who  become  proficient  in  a  month ;  others  I  have  to  let  go,  sometimes. 
I  keep  them  sometimes  for  six  months,  and  then  if  they  are  not  able 
to  make  $7.50 — even  if  they  work  by  the  piece — I  let  them  go.  I 
pay  more  wages  than  that  when  they  become  skilful  by  putting  them 
on  piecework. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  effect  has  the  increased  tariff  on  these  raw 
materials  had  upon  the  price  at  which  you  sell  your  finished  manu- 
factured product  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  It  has  not  had  any  effect.  I  interviewed  two  large 
users  of  gelatin  on  the  way  down  here  and  they  said  that  the  quality 
of  American  sheet  gelatin  is  superior  to  any  imported  gelatin,  but 
that  our  prices  are  prohibitive.  That  is  the  only  reason  we  could 
get  no  orders. 

Mr.  KAINET.  Could  you  not  lower  your  price  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  We  could  not  lower  it  to  where  the  imported  article 
is  sold  now. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Have  you  changed  the  amount  of  wages  paid  your 
employees  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  We  have  not  changed  the  wages. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  It  is  just  a  question  of  profits,  then,  that  you  are 
presenting — a  question  of  the  individual  profits  of  your  firm  wnich  are 
affected  by  this  raise  in  the  tariff  on  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  profits  are  affected  and  also  the  total  income. 
I  had  to  shut  the  factory  down  on  the  21st  day  of  December,  the 
first  time  since  I  have  been  in  it,  which  dates  from  May,  1890. 

I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  I  did  not  like  the  looks  of  the  faces  of  the 
women  when  I  paid  them.  We  live  in  a  cold  country  and  coal  is  $10 
a  ton,  which  is  $2.80  more  than  it  is  in  Burlington,  40  miles  up  the 
road.  Wood  is  $8  a  cord.  When  you  turn  women  off  in  the  middle 
of  the  winter  up  there  for  lack  of  work  it  is  a  serious  thing. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Have  you  made  a  comparison  of  the  efficiency  of  your 
labor  with  foreign  labor  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  have  made  a  careful  study  of  it.  Last  Thursday 
I  spent  with  an  expert  in  Norwich,  Conn.,  who  has  visited  every  for- 
eign factory  making  this  article,  and  he  says  that  my  methods  and 
the  equipment  of  my  factory  are  the  simplest  that  he  has  seen 
anywhere.  I  think,  comparing  the  methods  and  the  location  of  the 
factory,  that  we  can  produce  gelatin  as  cheaply  as  anybody  can, 
barring  the  question  of  wages. 

will  say  that  one  factory,  turning  out  this  product  in  Cincinnati 
s  now  m  the  hands  of  a  receiver.  Their  boast  was— on  their  letter- 
heads and  circulars  -that  they  made  American  sheets  from  American 
gelatin. 

Mr.  R.AIXKY.  Have  you  anv  objection  to  stating  what  vour 
profits  are? 

Mr.  BuiGiiAM.   What  is  that? 


SCHEDULE   A.  201 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLTJE,  ETC. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  say,  have  you  any  objection  to  stating  what  your 
profits  are  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  will  gladly  state  them  in  writing. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  is  that,  please  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  will  gladly  state  them  in  writing  (on  file).  I 
would  rather  not  state  them  orally. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  pay  just  the  same 
wages  to  your  laborers  now  as  you  did  before  the  increase  in  the 
tariff  on  the  raw  material ;  that  you  sell  your  manufactured  products 
for  exactly  the  same  price  as  you  did  before  the  increase  in  the  tariff 
on  the  raw  materials,  and;  moreover,  that  the  increase  in  the  tariff 
on  raw  materials  simply  affected  the  amount  of  the  dividends  that 
you  paid  your  stockholders.  Now,  I  am  asking  you,  and  what  I  am 
anxious  to  know  is,  what  your  dividends  are  and  how  much  they  are 
affected,  inasmuch  as  you  are  asking  relief  on  that  account  and  on 
that  account  alone. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  relief  I  want  is  not  to  lose  the  business  I  have. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  read  this  chemical  schedule  which  was 
passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  last  year  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  studied  it. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  read  the  paragraph  dealing  with  gelatin, 
glue,  glue  size,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  have  not. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  If  you  will  read  that,  I  think  you  will  find  that  this 
proposed  measure  prevents  the  injustices  which  you  describe  and 
which  were  due,  as  I  understand  it,  to  the  decision  of  the  board  of 
appraisers  under  the  Payne  law,  by  which  gelatin  in  sheets,  which  was 
originally,  no  doubt,  intended  by  the  committee  which  framed  the 
bill  to  cover  only  ornamental  sheets — that  the  finished  product  was 
interpreted  to  mean  all  gelatin  that  comes  into  the  country,  at  least 
if  it  comes  in  in  similar  sheets  to  that.  If  you  will  read  the  bill,  you 
will  see  that  it  corrects  that  injustice  by  reclassifying  the  gelatin. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Do  I  understand  that  it  would  carry  a  duty  like  the 
duty  on  gelatin  bando  or  flowers  ?  They  carry  specific  duties  of  their 
own. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  had  better  read  the  bill  and  if  you 
have  any  further  suggestions  to  make  after  you  have  studied  that, 
we  will  be  glad  to  have  you  put  them  in  the  record. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  is  the  first  sample  sheet  you  showed  ?  It  is  con- 
strued as  a  manufacture  of  gelatin,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  This  first  sample  I  intended  to  show  you  is  not  a 
manufacture  of  gelatin;  it  is  gelatin. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  the  other  is  a  manufacture  of  gelatin  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  thin  sheet  like  that  [indicatingl  is  the  finished 
product,  the  manufacture  of  gelatin. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  under  the  language  of  this  bill,  the  bill  passed 
by  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  first  article  would  come  in  accord- 
ing to  its  value  and  not  as  sheet  gelatin,  that  is  under  the  bill  as 
prepared  at  the  last  session  of  Congress?  Would  not  that  relieve 
your  difficulty?  As  a  manufacture  of  gelatin,  valued  not  above 
10  cents  a  pound,  25  cents  a  pound,  and  above  25  cents  a  pound, 
where  would  that  first  sample  come  in — valued  not  above  10  cents, 
or  above  25  cents  ? 


202  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Above  25  cents. 

Mr.  HILL.  Above  25  cents  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  it  would  bear  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem 
and  the  manufactures  of  gelatin  would  bear  the  same  duty  of  25 
per  cent  ad  valorem  under  the  terms  of  this  bill,  so  that  your  diffi- 
culty would  not  be  relieved  at  all  from  what  it  is  now  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  understand  that  it  carried  a  duty  of  35  per  cent 
for  sheet  gelatin. 

.   Mr.  HILL.  I  mean  under  the  proposed  law  as  passed  by  the  major- 
ity of  the  House  at  the  last  session. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  am  not  informed  on  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  If  your  first  sample  is  worth  25  cents  a  pound  or  more, 
the  duty  would  be  the  same  as  on  manufactures  of  gelatin. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  think  that  is  right. 

Mr.  HILL.  Your  contention  is  that  you  are  paying  just  as  much 
duty  on  your  raw  material  as  you  are  on  your  manufactured  product  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  That  is  it  exactly.  It  puts  the  foreign  manufacturer 
and  myself  on  exactly  the  same  basis.  He  is  protected  by  the  duty 
and  I  am  protected  by  the  duty,  and  that  throws  us  back  on  the  labor 
question. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Under  which  head  of  the  list  of  imports  would  you 
place  your  raw  materials — under  gelatin  valued  not  above  10  cents  a 
pound,  or  valued  above  10  cents  a  pound  and  not  above  25  cents  a 
pound,  or  valued  above  25  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  The  higher  value.  We  use  about  the  best  grade 
there  is. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  are  the  classes  of  gelatin  that  come  in  under 
the  lower  grades  ?  Have  you  any  samples  with  you  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  have  no  samples,  because  the  different  grades  of 
gelatin  are  the  results  of  different  parts  of  animal  matter  and  may  be 
for  different  purposes;  they  may  bo  for  cheaper  purposes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  proportion  of  the  total  cost  of  production  of 
your  finished  product  does  your  raw  material  bear?  You  realize 
that  under  the  ad  valorem  rate  there  is  not  the  same  amount  of  duty 
upon  the  finished  product  as  upon  the  raw  material,  even  though 
there  is  the  same  ad  valorem  rate  on  both  processes. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  On  that  grade  sheet  [indicating] — a  very  thin  sheet — 
the  percentage  of  raw  stock  entering  into  the  total  cost  is  about  30 
per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  Does  70  per  cent  represent  the  labor  cost  in  the 
manufacture  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Xo,  sir:  the  rest  we  divide  into  labor  and  overhead 
charges. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Where  do  your  profits  come  in  there? 

Mr.  liuKMFAM.   Where  do  the  prolits  enter? 

Mr.  .!AM MS.  If  '.]()  per  cent  is  the  cost  of  the  raw  material  and 
70  per  cent  is  the  lal>or  and  overhead  charges,  you  leave  your 
profits  out  entirely. 

Mr.  BIUMIAM.  I  gave  you  the  percentage  of  the  factory  cost  of  the 
article,  and  upon  that  we  determine  the  selling  price. 


SCHEDULE   A.  203 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  are  trying  to  get  relief  from  those  schedules  in 
the  Payne  bill.  You  have  not  read  the  bill  that  was  passed  by  the 
House  last  year  and  which  failed  in  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Your  complaint  is  against  the  existing  law? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  was  informed  at  the  office  that  the  sheets,  or 
rather  the  manufactured  product,  and  the  raw  stock  carry  the  same 
duty. 

Mr.  JAMES.  It  was  not  a  scientific  adjustment  of  the  schedule  rela- 
tive to  your  products  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  would  like  to  have  them  classified  the  same  as 
other  articles  are  classified.  Celluloid  is  an  article  almost  identical 
with  sheet  gelatin.  The  city  of  Newark  has  been  practically  built 
up  on  the  manufacture  of  celluloid.  It  also  has  a  very  high  pro- 
tective duty  and  a  tremendous  industry  has  resulted — one  of  the 
biggest  industries  of  the  world.  We  would  like  to  have  a  righteous 
duty  put  on  sheet  gelatin,  if  possible,  and  I  can  agree  not  to  raise 
our  selling  price  if  such  a  duty  is  put  on. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  do  you  think  the  rate  of  duty  should  be  to 
give  you  as  much  profit  as  you  think  the  industry  ought  to  have  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  We  had  in  our  brief  figures  from  50  to  60  per  cent 
on  imported  sheet  gelatin. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  is  now  35  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  now  35  per  cent.  The  difference  in 
the  foreign  labor  and  ours  is  50  per  cent,  and  I  do  not  think  that  is 
very  large. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  think  an  increase  to  90  or  1 00  p'er  cent  from 
35  per  cent  would  be  about  fair  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  do  not  understand  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  think  that  an  increase  to  90  or  100  per  cent, 
or  about  double  what  it  is  now,  would  be  the  fair  thing  for  this 
industry  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  think  it  would  be  fair;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  you  think  you  would  make  a  little  more  profit? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  Well,  I  have  got  to  make  a  little  more  profit  hi 
order  to  live  now. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  consumer  would  not  have  to  pay  any  more  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  can  sell  at  the  same  price  that  we  are  selling  now, 
but  we  would  expect  to  do  a  great  deal  more  business  if  the  imported 
sheet  were  kept  out  of  the  country. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  you  had  that  duty  you  think  you  could  sell  it 
much  cheaper  because  you  could  sell  more  of  it  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  I  can  not  tell  how  much  cheaper. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  if  there  were  any  importations  made  you  would 
have  to  sell  it  at  a  higher  price  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  We  have  competition  here  in  this  country.  There 
are  other  factories.  There  is  a  larger  factory  than  ours  at  Buffalo. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  state  to  the  committee  that  as  we 
have  allowed  this  gentleman  15  minutes,  the  time  consumed  in  ask- 
ing him  questions  will  be  taken  out  of  the  time  of  the  committee 
and  not  out  of  his  time. 

Mr.  BRIGHAM.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 


204  TAEEBT  KEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

The  brief  of  Brigham  Sheet  Gelatine  Co.  follows: 

As  gelatin  sheets,  colored,  clear,  white,  frosted  or  ground,  figured  or  opaque,  trimmed 
to  standard  sizes,  made  from  ordinary  crude  gelatin  or  glue  in  sheet  form,  which  is 
now  taxed  at  35  per  cent  ad  valorem,  should  have  more  protection,  because  the  gelatin 
sheets  as  above  specified  are  a  finished  article  made  from  the  crude  gelatin  or  glue; 
and  as  a  finished  article  should  be  taxed  at  a  higher  rate  of  duty,  viz,  50  or  60  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 

The  following  is  a  suggested  change  in  phraseology:  Gelatin  sheets,  a  manufacture 
of  gelatin,  colored,  clear,  frosted  or  ground,  figured  or  opaque,  trimmed  to  standard 
sizes. 

We  recommend  that  the  paragraphs  on  gelatin  as  suggested  above  be  made  sepa- 
rate and  not  included  with  related  articles  as  in  paragraph  23. 

BRIQHAM  SHEET  GELATINE  Co., 

Randolph,  Vt. 

STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  DELANY,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  PRES- 
IDENT NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  GLUE  AND  GELATIN 
MANUFACTURERS. 

Mr.  DELANY.  In  reference  to  paragraph  23  of  Schedule  A  of  the 
present  tariff  act  we  understand  it  to  be  the  wish  of  your  committee 
that  the  glue  and  gelatin  manufacturing  industry  of  the  United 
States  should  make  a  brief  presentation  of  what  it  considers  to  be 
the  best  interests  of  the  people  in  this  special  matter,  tKe  needs  of 
the  Treasury,  and  the  continued  progress  of  the  manufacturing  of 
glue  and  gelatin  in  this  country. 

Taking  up  these  several  matters  in  the  order  above  given,  it  can 
truthfully  be  said  that  the  glue  consumers  of  the  United  States  are 
now  being  as  well  served  by  their  own  manufacturers  as  are  any 
other  glue  consumers  in  the  industrial  world.  The  United  States 
glue  makers  have  now  attained  to  a  standard  of  quality  in  what  is 
needed  in  the  way  of  permanence  of  adhesion  required  in  this  trying 
climate,  that  is  not  appreciated  or  needed  in  the  greater  part  of 
Europe,  as  well  as  a  diversity  of  product  that  is  well  adapted  to  the 
great  variety  of  purposes  for  which  glue  is  required,  while  the  for- 
eign glue  maker  has  concerned  himself  with  the  production  of  an 
article  suitable  to  existing  conditions  in  his  own  locality,  and  much 
more  limited  in  its  adaptability  to  general  use  in  this  country  than 
the  American  product. 

The  usi>  of  foreign-made  glues  has  been  chiefly  for  specific  purposes 
and  has  shown  a  steady  and  regular  growth  in  the  operation  of  exist- 
ing tariff  raters.  As  the  actual  cost  of  glue,  as  a  component  part  of 
any  article  in  which  it  is  used,  is  so  small  as  to  make  it  a  negligible 
quantity,  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of  duty  would  be  of  no  benefit  to  the 
ultimate  consumer. 

Regarding  the  question  of  revenue,  we  conceive  it  to  be  the  wish 

of  your  committee  that  this  should  be  fixed  at  such  point  as  will 

bring  the  most  money  to  the  United  States  Treasury  without  any 

burden  to  our  consumers.     A  reference  to  the  statistics  compiled  by 

the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  will  show  that  the  present 

tariil  rates  have  brought  a  steadily  increasing  revenue  to  the  Treasury 

>,  and  in  connection  with  this  fact  we  respect- 

>   the  estimated  revenue  that  would  be  produced 

operation  <M  the  taritl'  rates  proposed  in  H.  R.  bill  20182. 

1-or  the  fiscal  year  of  J'JIU  the  revenues  collected  from  items  included 


SCHEDULE   A.  205 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

in  paragraph  23  were  $437,301.37;  for  the  year  1911,  $442,511.05, 
while  the  estimated  revenue  from  the  operation  of  H.  R.  bill  20182 
was  $291,025. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  present  rates  of  tariff  have  tended  to  in- 
crease the  revenue  for  the  Treasury,  your  attention  is  called  to  the 
three  years  beginning  July  1,  1894,  and  ending  June  30,  1897,  during 
which  time  the  Wilson  bill  was  in  force,  when  the  rate  of  duty  on  glue 
and  gelatin  was  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  average  amount  of  duty 
collected  on  glue  and  gelatin  during  those  three  years  was  $199,334.41. 
The  following  three  years  the  Dingley  bill  was  in  operation,  which  car- 
ried the  same  rates  of  duty  as  the  present  act,  and  during  those  three 
years  the  average  revenue  collected  from  glue  and  gelatin  was 
$248,886.04.  This  has  increased  steadily,  the  highest  point  being  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1910,  when  the  revenue  amounted  to 
$402,697.26.  The  greatest  amount  of  revenue  collected  hi  any  one 
year  during  the  operation  of  the  Wilson  bill  was  $208,576,  and  the 
revenue  on  the  same  articles  for  year  ending  June  30,  1910,  the  year 
carrying  the  largest  importations  of  glue  and  gelatin,  was  $402,697.26, 
clearly  showing  that  present  rates  of  duty  are  not  prohibitive,  but 
permit  a  steady  growth  in  importations. 

Your  attention  is  here  called  to  the  fact  that  in  submitting  these 
figures  we  deal  with  glue  and  gelatin  exclusively,  and  not  with  all  the 
articles  enumerated  in  paragraph  23  of  Schedule  A,  for  the  reason 
that  the  Wilson  bill  did  not  include  agar-agar  and  manufactures  of 
gelatin  in  the  same  paragraph  with  glue  and  gelatin.  Agar-agar  is  not 
an  animal  product  like  glue  or  gelatin,  but  is  exclusively  a  vegetable 

Eroduct  which  enters  into  competition  with  gelatin  for  food  purposes, 
ut  is  not  applicable  for  purposes  requiring  glue. 
It  is  also  tne  opinion  of  the  trade  that  the  administrative  depart- 
ment of  the  Government  can  be  best  served  by  separating  the  items 
of  glue  and  gelatin  instead  of  including  them  in  one  bracket.  Prior 
to  the  act  of  October  1,  1890,  glue  and  gelatin  were  not  included  in 
the  same  paragraph  and  they  should  not  be,  because  the  labor  cost 
in  gelatin  is  two  to  five  times  that  of  glue.  Since  that  date  the 
operation  of  the  pure-food  laws  has  imposed  certain  exacting  re- 
quirements upon  the  American  gelatin  maker  which  have  resulted 
in  greatly  increasing  the  cost,  while  on  the  other  hand,  the  European 
manufacturer  does  not  have  to  comply  with  similar  requirements  in 
his  own  country.  A  proper  enforcement  of  the  pure-food  laws  in 
this  matter  requires  a  certain  amount  of  coordinative  action  between 
our  customhouse  and  such  other  departments  of  our  Government  as 
may  be  interested,  and  we  respectfully  suggest  that  these  conditions 
be  carefully  considered  in  the  construction  of  a  new  bill. 

Regarding  the  third  point  to  be  considered  at  this  time — the  con- 
tinued progress  of  the  manufacture  of  glue  and  gelatin  in  this  coun- 
try— it  may  be  well  to  say  that  there  is  probably  no  industry  in  the 
United  States  which  has  to  invest  such  a  large  proportion  of  its  cap- 
ital in  fixed  plant  that  is  worthless  for  any  other  purpose,  and  which 
would  be  seriously  injured  by  any  considerable  change  from  present 
conditions. 

Under  the  moderate  rates  of  duty,  which  have  not  even  fairly  well 
equalized  conditions  as  to  labor  between  this  country  and  Europe,  the 
domestic  cost  of  labor  in  glue  being  about  double  that  of  Europe,  our 


206  TAKIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

manufacturers  have  been  stimulated  to  work  out  the  various  prob- 
lems put  before  them  by  the  competition  of  modern  business  condi- 
tions, but  cannot  now  afford  to  meet  an  unrestricted  competition  from 
the  recently  organized  European  Glue  Trust.  This  trust  is  now  one 
of  the  strongest  and  most  complete  monopolies  in  the  world  and  has 
the  advantage  of  being  able  to  do  its  work  with  the  approval  of  the 
various  European  Governments.  At  present  it  absolutely  controls 
the  glue  manufacturing  industry  of  Germany  and  Austria,  has  plants 
in  Italy,  France,  Holland,  and  Eussia,  and  has  recently  extended  its 
operations  to  South  America.  The  trust  claims  to  control  75  per 
cent  of  the  output  of  glue  of  the  Continent  of  Europe  and  is  largely 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  gelatin.  In  view  01  the  attitude  of 
the  American  Government  toward  monopoly,  we  assume  that  it  is 
not  the  intention  of  your  committee  to  make  such  reductions  hi 
duties  on  our  product  as  will  materially  assist  this  mammoth  com- 
petitor of  the  American  manufacturer  to  secure  the  control  of  this 
market.  The  National  Association  of  Glue  and  Gelatin  Manufac- 
turers, now  making  this  presentation  to  you,  represents  simply  a 
friendly  association  organized  very  largely  for  the  purpose  of  working 
in  harmony  with  the  United  States  Government  in  various  ways  and 
which  our  association  would  be  glad  to  do  still  further  in  matters 
needing  consultation  with  either  the  legislative  or  administrative 
departments  of  the  United  States.  Any  statements  made  herein 
can  be  proved  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  your  committee,  and  all 
information  in  possession  of  the  association  is  at  the  service  of  your 
committee  when  needed  before  the  enactment  into  law  of  legislation 
relating  to  glue  and  gelatin. 

Under  present  conditions  the  glue  makers  of  the  United  States  are 
importing  about  50.000,000  pounds  of  their  raw  material  from 
countries  with  which  this  country  desires  to  establish  even  closer 
trade  relations,  and  any  disturbance  of  this  condition  would  work 
great  harm  to  a  number  of  legitimate  commercial  interests.  In  sup- 
port of  this  statement  we  submit  letters  from  several  prominent  im- 
porters in  this  line  of  business. 

We  also  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
manufacture  of  glue  and  gelatin  there  is  produced  throughout  the 
United  States,  as  a  by-product,  an  immense  quantity  of  nitrogenous 
and  phosphatic  material,  available  and  used  for  land-fertilizing 
purposes^  Any  tariff  law  adopted  that  will  affect  adversely  the  glue 
and  gelatin  industry  in  this  country  will  tend  to  deprive  the  farmers 
of  the  United  States  of  many  thousand  tons  of  most  excellent  and 
much  needed  animal-matter  fertilizers,  now  procurable  at  a  low  cost. 

The  letters  referred  to  by  Mr.  Delany  are  as  follows: 

STEPHEN  D.  DAY  &  SON, 

New  York,  January  2,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  \V.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  I  desire  to  make  respectful  protest  to  your  committee  against  favorable  action 
on  the  chemical  hill  as  originally  passed  by  the  House.  The  paragraph  relating  to  glue 
and  gelatin  would  tend  to  cause  the  shipment  to  Europe  of  a  large  quantity  of  raw  glue 
stork  which  we  are  now  receiving  from  India  and  selling  to  the  glue  makers  of  the 
United  Slates. 

A  reduction  of  the  present  duty  on  glue  and  gelatin  would  undoubtedly  cause  a 
decreased  amount  of  these  goods  to  be  made  in  the  United  States  and  a  largely  in- 


SCHEDULE  A.  207 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

creased  quantity  to  be  manufactured  by  the  cheaper  labor  of  Europe.  This  would  not 
only  injure  our  home  manufacturers  but  it  would  also  be  some  distuibance  to  freight 
rates  between  our  country  and  those  to  which  we  desire  to  increase  pur  exports.  I 
have  recently  returned  from  a  trip  around  the  world  and  am  in  a  position  to  be  able 
to  impress  upon  you  the  value  of  business  relations  with  India. 

I  am  also  in  a  position  to  state  to  you  that  a  decreased  shipment  of  glue  stock  to  the 
United  States  would  tend  to  lessen  the  amount  of  valuable  fertilizing  material  now 
available  to  our  farmers,  while  increasing  the  oxitput  of  such  goods  in  Europe. 

The  Ways  and  Means  Committee  must  have  been  mistaken  about  their  facts  in  regard 
to  the  matter  of  glue  and  gelatin,  as  I  can  not  imagine  any  good  reason  for  a  change 
which  will  decrease  revenue  to  the  United  States  Treasury,  disturb  existing  business 
in  this  country,  and  onlv  be  of  service  to  a  group  of  foreign  glue  makers  openly  banded 
together  in  a  combination  which  is  allowed  to  exist  in  Europe,  by  both  law  and 
custom,  but  which  is  not  allowed  in  the  United  States. 

Respectfully,  THOS.  H.  DAY, 

Of  Stephen  D.  Day  &  Son. 

OFFICE  OF  GEORGE  B.  RITCHIE  &  Co., 

New  York,  January  5,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  I  hereby  respectfully  protest  to  your  committee  against  the  approval  of  H.R. 
20182  in  its  original  form  as  relating  to  glue  and  gelatin.  I  have  not  a  dollar  invested 
in  any  glue  factory,  but  have  been  an  importer  of  raw  glue  stock  for  over  20  years 
from  India,  South  America,  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  a  reduction  in  the  duty 
on  glue  and  gelatin  would  cause  an  increased  shipment  of  this  kind  of  raw  material 
to  Europe  to  be  worked  up  by  cheaper  labor  there,  while  decreasing  its  use  in  the 
United  States.  Also,  we  can  not  expect  to  get  fair  freight  rates  to  the  countries  to 
which  we  wish  to  sell  our  manufactured  goods  unless  we  bring  their  raw  goods  to  our 
own  shores.  There  Ls  now  over  50,000,000  pounds  of  glue  stock  imported  into  the 
United  States,  and  it  is  clearly  to  the  interest  of  our  own  people  that  this  should  not 
be  lessened,  as  the  manufacturing  of  this  into  glue  gives  employment  to  a  large  num- 
ber of  people.  Also,  the  waste  from  glue  stock  produces  a  good  deal  of  valuable 
fertilizing  material,  and  this  ought  to  be  available  to  our  own  farmers  to  the  fullest 
extent  possible. 

For  many  years  there  has  been  very  strong  competition  between  the  glue  makers  of 
this  country,  and  they  have  not  the  advantage  of  the  combination  now  controlling  the 
greater  part  of  the  output  of  glue  in  Europe.  I  do  not  know  what  is  the  profit  of  glue 
making  in  Europe,  but  have  good  reasons  to  believe  that  it  is,  and  for  some  time  has 
been,  very  low  in  the  United  States,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  for  the  interest  of  anyone 
in  this  country  that  present  conditions  should  be  disturbed. 
Respectfully, 

GEO.  B.  RITCHIE  &  Co. 

NEW  YORK,  December  23,  1912. 
Mr.  RTJFUS  W.  POWELL, 

Secretary  National  Association  of  Glue  and  Gelatin  Manufacturers, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  as  to  the  effect  on  our  international  relations 
of  a  reduction  in  rates  of  duty  on  glue  into  the  United  States  I  will  say  to  you  frankly 
that  it  would  not  be  for  the  good  of  any  interests  except  the  glue  trust  in  Europe. 

During  the  present  year  we  have  ourselves  brought  in  from  India  alone  about 
6,000,000  pounds  of  glue  stock  for  the  use  of  the  glue  makers  of  this  country.  This 
has  helped  to  make  better  rates  of  exchange  in  our  Asiatic  business.  It  has  also 
added  to  the  amount  of  valuable  fertilizer  material  for  our  farmers.  We  think  it 
much  better  for  all  interests  in  the  United  States  that  this  raw  material  should  be 
used  here  than  diverted  to  the  European  glue  factories,  and  we  strongly  hope  that 
nothing  may  be  done  by  the  present  Congress  to  injure  the  glue  industry  of  the  United 
States,  which  we  know  to  be  conducted  on  a  very  moderate  basis  of  profit  and  without 
any  combination  of  any  kind. 

You  are  welcome  to  use  this  letter  in  any  way  you  choose. 
Yours,  truly. 

E.  S.  KTJH  &  VALK  Co., 
By  E.  S.  KUH,  President. 


208  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

FRANK  E.  IRSCH,  MERCHANDISE  BROKER, 

New  York,  January  S,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

.  Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  Kindly  enter  my  protest  against  that  part  of  the  proposed  chemical  bill  which 
reduces  the  duty  on  glue  and  gelatin. 

I  have  been  with  my  father,  as  a  broker,  handling  South  American  raw  animal 
products  for  over  25  years,  and  have  therefore  always  been  in  very  close  touch 
with  the  manufacturers  of  glue  of  the  United  States,  and  would  state  that  the  condi- 
tions in  this  industry  in  this  country  are  quite  different  from  what  they  are  in  Europe, 
as  over  there  business  is  largely  a  side  industry,  being  controlled  by  a  strong  combina- 
tion, whereas  in  this  country  the  glue  business  is  mostly  in  the  hands  of  independent 
parties  who  are  not  in  any  way  affiliated  with  the  packers. 

I  have  never  heard  in  any  way  of  any  combination  existing  among  the  manufac- 
turers of  glue  of  the  United  States,  and  know  there  is  strong  competition  amongst 
them. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  large  quantities  of  glue  stock  are  now  brought  to  the  United 
States  from  countries  with  whom  we  ought  to  increase  the  sale  of  our  manufactured 
goods,  I  therefore  consider  that  a  reduction  of  the  rates  of  duty  on  glue  and  gelatin 
would  only  disturb  present  conditions  without  being  of  any  service  to  any  interest 
except  those  of  the  glue  manufacturers  of  Europe. 
Will  you,  therefore,  kindly  consider  this  protest? 

Yours,  truly,  FRANK  E.  IRSCH. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  any  figures  on  the  exports  of  glue  from 

the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  They  are  very  limited,  Mr.  Harrison,  and  they  have 
been  confined  exclusively  to  specialties. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  To  high-grade  glues  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  No;  rather  what  we  would  call  low  grades.  They 
are  mostly  packing-house  products,  and  only  the  packing  houses  have 
the  material. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  include  those  figures 
in  your  statement  if  you  can  get  them  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  will. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  see  by  the  figures  that  the  United  States  is  the  largest 
producer  of  glue  in  the  world. 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  you  stand  a  reduction  and  scaling  of  the  duty  of 
60  per  cent  as  proposed  in  this  bill,  60  per  cent  of  the  present  duty 
cut  off  from  it  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  On  some  grades  of  glue— 60  per  cent  of  the  lowest 
grade? 

Mr.  HILL.  I  mean  60  per  cent  of  the  duty;  from  34  to  13  on  the 
low  grades,  from  25  to  15  on  the  middle  grades,  and  from  42  to  25 
on  the  high  grades  ?  Can  you  stand  it  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  If  the  paragraph  were  so  arranged  that  gelatines 
and  glues  could  be  separated,  there  could  be  some  adjustments  in 
the  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  do  you  not  make  some  such  proposition  to  the 
committee  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  have  suggested  it,  sir,  in  my  brief,  that  the  para- 
graph be  so  divided  that  gelatines  and  glues  be  separated,  if  that  could 
be  done. 

Mr.  HILL.  Some  portion  of  this  classification  could  be  changed,  so 
that  you  could  have  the  duty  lower,  and  not  cut  your  life  out? 


SCHEDULE  A.  209 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLTJE,  ETC. 

Mr.  DEL  ANY.  We  could  have  some  reduction  in  the  duty  on  certain 
qualities.  On  the  other  hand,  for  example,  on  high-grade  gelatines 
that  come  under  the  classification  of  over  35  cents,  consisting  almost 
exclusively  of  photographic  gelatines,  it  would  be  different.  If  the 
duty  were  reduced  on  that,  the  Government  would  simply  receive 
that  much  less  revenue. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  would  not  do  any  harm  to  reduce  the  duty  on  that, 
then,  if  it  would  not  affect  the  importations. 

Mr.  DELANY.  The  consumption  of  photographic  gelatin  in  this 
country  is  practically  limited  to  one  consumer,  whose  whole  require- 
ments were  formerly  supplied  by  foreign  manufacturers,  but  the 
United  States  gelatin  makers  are  now  furnishing  this  party  with  a 
portion  of  his  requirements. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  people  know  more  than  anybody  else  about  this; 
why  do  you  not  come  in  with  a  proposition  showing  the  articles  on 
which  you  can  reduce  the  duty  without  affecting  seriously  your  indus- 
try, and  showing  the  necessity  for  continuing  it  in  other  ways  1 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  can  make  such  a  suggestion  now. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  had  better  make  it  in  writing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  him  suggest  it  now. 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  would  suggest  that  a  proper  line  of  demarcation  be 
made  between  glue  and  gelatin  from  a  technical  standpoint,  and  I 
believe  perhaps  the  maximum  point,  as  far  as  revenue  is  concerned, 
would  be  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  on  glues,  35  per  cent  on  gelatin  up  to 
35  cents  a  pound,  and  45  per  cent  on  gelatins  above  35  cents  a  pound. 
I  believe  those  rates  would  produce  the  greatest  amount  of  revenue. 

Mr.  HILL.  How  about  equalizing  cost  of  production  here  and 
abroad  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  think  those  rates  would  fairly  well  do  it. 

Mr.  HULL.  Gelatin  is  merely  a  high-grade  glue,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes ;  you  may  say  it  is  high-grade  glue.  It  requires 
great  purification  of  the  material,  and  a  different  process,  a  much 
more  expensive  process. 

Mr.  HULL.  Isinglass  is  high-grade  fish  glue,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  am  not  familiar  with  that. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  would  you  make  as  the  line  of  distinction  between 
gelatin  and  glue  ?  Would  you  define  it  by  giving  it  some  specific 
price? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  HULL.  If  so,  what  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  With  the  exception  of  a  moderate  amount  of  low- 
grade  Swiss  gelatine,  which  comes  into  this  country  at  a  cost  of  about 
13  or  14  cents,  I  would  say  that  16  cents  would  be  the  line  of  demar- 
cation between  glue  and  gelatine.  There  is  no  real  gelatine  im- 
ported into  this  country  under  about  16  cents  a  pound,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Swiss  gelatine  to  which  I  referred. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Then  the  demarcation  is  not  in  the  terms  "glue" 
and  "gelatine"  ?  It  is  in  the  value  of  the  article,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  It  is  in  the  value  of  the  article,  and  it  is  also  in  its 
application  and  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  required. 

T'S959°— VOL  1—13 14 


210  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  am  asking  about  is  this:  If  we  put  a  tax 
on  gelatine  and  then  put  a  tax  on  glue,  according  to  the  customs  of 
the  trade,  could  the  Treasury  Department  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween what  was  glue  and  what  was  gelatine  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

I  referred  to  the  administration  of  the  pure-food  act,  which  is  one 
very  important  matter.  At  present  the  gelatin  importer  can  import 
gelatin  as  glue,  because  they  are  both  classified  in  the  same  bracket. 
After  he  gets  it  into  this  country  he  does  not  have  to  sell  it  as  glue 
if  he  does  not  want  to.  The  attention  of  the  customhouse  officials  is 
not  called  to  the  fact  that  he  is  importing  gelatin.  When  gelatin 
is  imported,  which  is  largely  used  for  edible  purposes,  then  it  is  apt  to 
come  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pure-food  law.  A  separation  of 
the  two  articles,  glue  and  gelatin,  would  help  very  materially  in  the 
administration  of  these  laws. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  meant  was,  if  we  designate  them  in  the  bill, 
one  as  glue  and  the  other  as  gelatin,  do  the  customs  of  the  trade 
sufficiently  make  a  demarcation  for  the  Treasury  Department  to  know 
the  difference  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes,  sir;  the  trade  would  not  consider  anything  as 
gelatin  of  a  valuation  under  16  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Does  not  the  color  usually  show  what  it  is? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Largely  so,  but  you  can  get  almost  the  same  color  in 
a  very  low  grade  bone  glue.  It  is  the  color,  sweetness,  and  the 
strength. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  they  be  interchangeably  used  for  food? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Not  satisfactorily;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  old  is  the  glue  industry  in  this  country? 

Mr.  DELANY.  There  is  a  gentleman  in  this  room  whose  great  grand- 
father was  in  the  business  in  1808,  and  I  do  not  know  how  much 
further  back  it  goes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  We  are  now  the  largest  producers  of  glue  in  the 
world  ? 

Mr.  DELAXY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  How  much  longer  will  the  industry  need  a  protective 
tariff  before  it  will  be  able  to  stand  alone,  being  now  the  largest  pro- 
ducers of  glue  in  the  world? 

Mr.  DELAXY.  1  would  say  until  the  cost  of  labor  is  about  the  same 
in  this  country  and  any  other  country. 

Mr.  KITCIIIX.  Do  you  moan  the  productive  cost?  Do  you  not 
understand  the  American  laborer,  as  a  general  thing,  produces  two  or 
three  times  more  for  his  employer  than  the  German  laborer,  and  do 
not  the  free-trade  Knglish  laborers  produce  just  one  and  one-half 
times  as  much  as  the  German  laborer? 

Mr.  DELANY.  That  has  not  been  the  experience  of  the  people  in 
our  business,  who  have  been  engaged  in  both  German  and  American 
factories.  That  matter  has  been  very  thoroughly  discussed  in  our 
association,  and  the  experiences  given' by  men  who  are  familiar  with 
conditi'  ns  on  both  sides  of  the  water  show  that  that  is  not  true  so 
far  as  the  glue  business  is  concerned.  They  give  as  a  reason  for  it 
the  glue  factories  in  Europe  are  located  in  places  where 
tne  population  is  small,  and  the  inhabitants,  or  at  least  the  male 


SCHEDULE   A.  211 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

portion  thereof,  depend  upon  that  industry  for  their  living.  Our 
people,  they  say,  move  around  from  one  place  to  another,  and  we 
never  know  whether  our  men  are  coming  back  from  Saturday  night 
to  Monday  morning. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  If  these  new  rates  are  put  into  effect,  do  you  expect 
to  cut  down  the  wages? 

Mr.  DELANY.  No,  sir ;  not  if  we  can  help  it. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then  what  you  want  to  have  is  a  cutting  down  of 
profits  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  They  were  not  very  big  last  year.  They  will  not 
stand  much  cutting. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Have  you  any  objection  to  stating  how  large  they 
were  ?  What  were  your  dividends  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  We  are  a  partnership.  I  do  not  object  to  stating 
what  my  profits  were  last  year.  They  were  about  eight-tenths  of  a 
cent  per  pound  on  a  pound"  of  glue. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  That  does  not  mean  much  to  us.  What  was  your 
return  on  the  capital  you  have  invested?  What  dividends  do  you 
pay? 

Mr.  DELANY.  We  pay  no  salaries,  and  it  amounted — I  will  have 
to  go  to  memory  on  this — without  the  payment  of  salaries,  to 
about,  I  think,  between  8  and  9  per  cent.  We  had  a  total  invested 
in  our  glue  department  of  about  $210,000,  and  our  profits  were 
between  $17,000  and  $18,000. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  you  want  to  do  is  to  maintain  your  8  and  9 
per  cent  annual  dividends  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  We  do  not  pay  dividends.     It  is  a  partnership. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  It  is  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  DELANY.  But  in  corporations,  of  course,  salaries  are  paid. 
There  are  no  salaries  charged  at  all  in  our  concern. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  value  of  the  American  output  for  1912  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  should  think  about  $10,000,000  of  glue  and  gela- 
tine; perhaps  a  little  more. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Wre  imported  less  than  a  million? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Dollars'  worth  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  think  I  can  tell  you. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  DELANY.  1912  is  rather  misleading,  because  there  was  a  deci- 
sion of  the  Treasury  Department  in  1911  which  embraced  a  large 
quantity  of  sheet  gelatin;  1910  is  really  the  last  year  in  which  there 
is  any  division  made  between  manufacturers  of  gelatin  and  glue. 
In  the  year  1910,  the  fiscal  year,  the  importations  of  glue  and  gelatin 
amounted  to  $1,237,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Glue  in  1912  amounted  to  $772,842.  It  was  sepa- 
rated in  1912. 

Mr.  DELANY.  Glue  alone.  $770,130. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  the  Pavne  act  increase  the  tariff  on  glue  3 

Mr.  DELANY.  It  did  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  did  not? 

Mr.  DELANY.   Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  labor  cost  ? 


212  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Mr.  DELANY.  It  depends  a  great  deal  on  the  kind  of  glue  being 
made.  In  my  own  factory  the  cost  of  labor  last  year  was  about  $1.80 
or  $1.85  per  hundred  pounds. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  tariff  on  it  now? 

Mr.  DELANY.  The  tariff  ranges,  on  such  goods  as  we  make,  from 
2^  cents  per  pound  on  the  lowest  bracket  to  25  per  cent  on  the  next 
succeeding  bracket. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  is  much  greater  than  the  labor  cost,  then. 

Mr.  DELANT.  I  have  stated  that  with  a  rearrangement  of  the 
schedule,  so  glue  and  gelatine  were  separated,  a  25  per  cent  duty  all 
around  on  glue  would  be  satisfactory,  so  far  as  production  of  revenue 
is  concerned,  and  it  is  sufficient  for  the  manufacturers. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  much  of  a  reduction  would  that  be  on  the 
schedule  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  On  goods  below  10  cents  per  pound  it  would  be  a 
reduction  of  about  30  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  practically  no  reduction  at  all. 
What  you  contend  for  really  is  to  maintain  practically  the  present 
schedule,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  DELANY.  No,  sir;  I  do  not.  I  would  much  rather  see  the 
schedule  rearranged  so  that  gelatin  and  glue  would  be  separated. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  rate  would  amount  to  the  same,  would  it 
not  ?  You  would  not  have  much  difference  on  the  basis  you  suggest. 

Mr.  DELANY.  You  would  have  25  per  cent  on  goods  up  to  10  cents 
per  pound.  I  do  not  think  there  are  many  goods  brought  into  this 
country  between  10  and  16  cents  a  pound.  I  think  that  is  the  smallest 
end  of  the  importation. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Is  it  not  true  the  imports  have  increased  almost 
every  year  for  a  long  period  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  the  exports  have  increased,  too,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  much  difference  in  the 
exports,  because  they  are  specialties.  They  are  not  competitive 
goods. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  do  export  several  hundred  thousand  dollars 
worth,  do  we  not  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes:  I  think  so. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  And  we  do  not  sell  it  to  the  foreigner  cheaper  than 
we  sell  it  to  our  own  people,  do  we? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  can  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not,  do  you  ? 

NT.  DELANY.  We  do  not  export  any  at  all. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  By  far  the  greatest  amount  of  importations  of  glue 
that  come  in  is  valued  at  not  above  10  cents  a  pound?. 

Mr.  DELAXY.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Three  times  as  much  of  the  next  class,  and  practi- 
cally none  at  all  of  the  high-grade  class? 

Mr.  DELANY.  That  is  what  I  say.  There  is  very  little  glue  coming 
into  this  country  above  10  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Docs  not  the  importation  uniformly  increase 
every  year  ? 

Mr.  DELAXY.  The  importations  increase  every  year,  as  shown  by 
my  record,  which  goes  back  to  1895. 


SCHEDULE  A.  213 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  much  were  they  in  1895  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  were  they  last  year? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Let  us  get  1895  first.  How  much  were  they  in 
1895? 

Mr.  DELANY.  $421,862.44. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  much  were  they  last  year? 

Mr.  DELANY.  You  refer  to  glue  alone  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  DELANY.  Last  year,  $770,130. 

Mr.  JAMES.  This  glue  which  they  export  has  to  be  sold  in  competi- 
tion with  the  world,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  a  competitive  glue.  It  is  a 
packing-house  product.  Only  the  packing  houses  have  the  material 
to  make  it.  It  is  a  specialty. 

Mr.  JAMES.  If  it  is  not  a  competitive  glue,  why  do  you  want  a  high 
tariff  over  here  to  protect  you  against  competition  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  That  is  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  production  of 
the  country. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Then  on  that  you  would  not  need  any  tariff  at  all, 
because  it  is  not  competitive  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  I  do  not  suppose  the  packer  cares  much  about  it,  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  DELANY.  May  I  be  permitted  to  make  a  correction  of  a  ques- 
tion Mr.  James  asked  me  a  moment  ago  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DELANY.  Mr.  James  asked  me  a  question  as  to  the  percentage 
of  profit  in  our  glue  department  last  year.  We  are  also  engaged  hi 
the  manufacture  of  curled  hair,  and  I  had  in  mind  the  total  profits 
of  our  business  when  I  told  him  14  per  cent.  The  amount  of  capital 
we  had  invested  in  our  glue  department  last  year  was  about  $210,000 
and  our  profits  were  between  $17,000  and  $18,000  in  that  depart- 
ment. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  other  commodity  you  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Curled  hair. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Curled  hair? 

Mr.  DELANY.  Yes,  sir. 

ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   FROM   NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION   OF   GLUE 
AND  GELATIN  MANUFACTURERS. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  February  4,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  response  to  a  request  for  a  constructive  suggestion 
in  regard  to  the  wording  of  paragraph  23,  Schedule  A,  of  the  existing 
tariff  act,  we  respectfully  suggest  that  the  maximum  revenue  that 
can  be  collected  and  that  will  also  permit  full  and  free  competition 
with  the  domestic  product  can  be  realized  by  the  adoption  of  the 
following  phraseology  and  rates  of  duty,  to  wit: 

Glue,  glue  size,  insinglass  or  fish  glue,  and  prepared  fish  sounds  other  than  crude 
or  dried  or  salted  for  preservation  only,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Gelatin  in  sheets,  emulsions,  or  any  other  form,  and  all  manufactures  of  gelatin  or 
or  which  gelatin  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  provided  for, 


014  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

valued  at  not  above  thirty-five  cents  per  pound,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
valued  at  above  thirty-five  cents  per  pound,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  agar- 
agar,  or  Japanese  isinglass,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Taking  the  above-named  articles  into  consideration,  we  beg  to 
refer  to  the  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Commerce  and  Navigation  for  a 
period  of  14  years,  from  1899  to  1912,  inclusive,  during  which  time 
57,755,892.90  pounds  of  glue,  valued  at  not  over  10  cents  per  pound, 
were  imported  into  this  country,  of  which  the  value  was  $4,085,585.49 
and  the  duties  collected  were  $1,443,898.26,  as  shown  by  the  table 
annexed  hereto. 

These  figures  show  the  average  invoice  price  to  have  been  7.07  cents 
per  pound  and  the  average  rate  of  duty  to  have  been  35.34  per  cent. 
From  the  best  information  that  can  be  obtained,  about  25  per  cent  of 
these  importations  consisted  of  hide-stock  glue,  and  the  greater  part 
of  which  was  used  for  one  specific  purpose,  and  the  average  invoice 
price  for  which  is  about  9  cents  per  pcund ;  the  remaining  75  per  cent 
equal  to  about  43,316,919  pounds,  was  therefore  invoiced  at  about 
an  average  price  of  6.43  cents  per  pound,  on  which  the  average  rate  of 
duty  was  38.86  per  cent,  and  at  this  valuation  a  duty  of  25  per  cent 
would  place  such  qualities  of  glue  in  this  market  at  a  cost  of  slightly 
over  8  cents  per  pound,  a  price  sufficiently  attractive  to  encourage  an 
increase  in  importations  to  such  an  extent  that  the  revenue  derived 
therefrom  would  exceed  the  amount  of  duties  now  collected.  Glues 
carrying  an  invoice  price  of  6.43  cents  per  pound  enter  more  fully  into 
general  use  than  glues  imported  for  specific  purposes,  hence  the 
opportunity  for  increased  importations. 

We  recommend  an  ad  valorem  instead  of  a  specific  rate,  for  the 
reason  that  the  higher  the  price  of  glue  the  greater  is  its  amnufacturing 
cost,  and  while  the  specific  rate  imposed  in  H.  R.  20182  would  be 
equivalent  to  over  15  per  cent  on  glues  of  an  average  value  of  6.43 
cents  per  pound,  it  would  only  be  about  11  per  cent  on  glues  valued 
at  9  cents  per  pound,  which  appears  to  us  as  a  discrimination  against 
the  makers  of  the  better  qualities. 

We  also  respectfully  submit  that  the  rate  of  duty  which  we  suggest 
is  an  average  reduction  of  over  28  per  cent  from  the  present  schedule 
on  glues  valued  at  not  over  10  cents  per  pound. 

Wo  request  higher  rates  of  duty  on  gelatin  than  on  glues  for  the 
following  reasons,  viz: 

First.  The  labor  expense  per  pound  to  manufacture  gelatin  is  much 
greater  proportionately  than  in  glue. 

Second.  The  operation  of  the  national  and  State  pure-food  laws  has 
imposed  within  the  past  three  years  certain  exacting  requirements 
upon  the  makers  in  the  United  States,  which  have  resulted  in  greatly 
increasing  the  cost  of  manufacturing  gelatin  (the  larger  part  of  which 
is  used  for  edible  purposes),  whereas  the  European  manufacturers  do 
not  have  to  comply  with  similar  requirements  in  their  own  countries. 

Third.  The  rates  of  duty  asked  for  by  the  gelatin  manufacturers  of 
the  United  States  will  permit  of  lively  competition  and  produce  the 
highest  possible  revenue  for  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  without 
any  burden  to  the  consumer. 

Fourth,  (ielatin  valued  above  35  cents  per  pound  imported  into 
the  I  imed  States  is  for  photographic  purposes  only  and  practically 
all  of  it  is  consumed  bv  one  concern. 


SCHEDULE  A. 


215 


PARAGR    PH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Fifth.  Furthermore,  gelatin  is  a  commodity  that  enters  into  the 
manufacture  or  production  of  luxuries  quite  altogether. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

CHARLES  DELANY, 
President  National  Association  of 

Glue  and  Gelatin  Manufacturers. 


Totals  of  sworn  statements  of  profit  and  loss  given  to  Senator  Charles  F.  Johnson,  of 
Maine,  by  the  most  prominent  glue  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  for  a  period 
of  12  months  ending  in  1912. 

Plant $4,  523, 448. 95 

Other  assets 3,  980, 355. 97 

Total 8,  503, 804. 92 

Profit 55,  766. 00 

Showing  a  percentage  of  profit  of  0.66/100  of  1  per  cent. 

The  above  figures  are  the  totals  of  statements  sent  to  Senator  Johnson  in  response  to 
a  request  to  the  individual  glue  manufacturers  of  the  National  Association  of  Glue  and 
Gelatin  Manufacturers  that  such  sworn  statements  be  sent. 


81  FULTON  STREET,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


RUFUS  W.  POWELL, 
Secretary  National  Association  of 
Glue  and  Gelatin  Manufacturers. 


Imports  into  the  United  States  of  glue  valued  at  not  above  10  cents  per  pound,  including 
glue  improperly  reported  as  gelatin  under  above  valuation,  under  specific  rate  of  duty 
0/2%  cents  per  pound. 

[Collated  from  Reports  of  Commerce  and  Navigation,  1899  to  1912,  inclusive.] 


Years. 

Pounds. 

Values. 

Duties  paid. 

Averages. 

Per  unit 
of  quan- 
tity. 

Ad  valo- 
rem rate 
of  duty. 

1899: 
Glue  

2,706,304.00 
18,749.00 

3,910,182.00 
85,717.00 

2,986,541.00 
19,726.00 

2,842,851.00 
50,639.00 

3,125,352.50 
18,  746.  00 

3,448,304.00 
57,392.00 

4,762,379.20 
67,311.00 

4,236,648.00 
88,  359.  00 

4,733,963.00 
82,081.00 

4,763,905.00 
39,  400.  00 

$202,565.50 
1,034.00 

265,909.00 
5,575.00 

210,068.00 
817.00 

186,988.00 
3,002.00 

220,  296.  00 
1,081.00 

236,  153.  49 
3,369.00 

305,900.00 
4,  553.  00 

283,  836.  00 
5,968.00 

330,719.50 
6,257.00 

359,  952.  00 
1,955.00 

$67,  657.  62 
468.72 

97,754.59 
2,  142.  93 

74,  663.  54 
493.  15 

71,071.30 
1,265.98 

78,  133.  83 
468.65 

86,  207.  63 
1,434.81 

119,059.52 
1,682.79 

105,916.27 
2,  208.  98 

118,349.15 
2,052.03 

119,097.70 
985.01 

Cents. 
0.075 
.055 

.068 
.065 

.070 
.042 

.066 
.059 

.070 
.058 

.068 
.059 

.064 
.068 

.067 
.068 

.070 
.076 

.076 
.049 

Per  cent. 
33.40 
45.33 

36.76 
38.44 

35.55 
60.36 

38.01 
42.17 

35.47 
43.35 

36.51 
42.50 

38.92 
36.96 

37.32 
37.01 

35.79 
32.80 

33.09 
50.38 

Gelatin  

1900: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1901: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1902: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1903: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1904: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1905: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1906: 
Glue... 

Gelatin    .  .  . 

1907: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

1908: 
Glue  

Gelatin  

216  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

Imports  into  the  United  States  of  glue  valued  at  not  above  10  cents  per  pound,  including 
glue  improperly  reported  as  gelatin  under  above  valuation,  etc. — Continued. 


Ave 

rage. 

Years. 

Pounds. 

Values. 

Duties  paid. 

Per  unit 
of  quan- 
tity. 

Ad  valo- 
rem rate 
of  duty. 

1909: 
Glue 

3.839.866.00 

$279.988.00 

$95,996.76 

Cents. 
0.073 

Per  cent. 
34.29 

Gelatin                  

12,063.00 

609.00 

301.58 

.050 

49.52 

1910: 
Glue  ..         

5.947,184.20 

455,029.00 

148,679.68 

.076 

32.68 

Gelatin            .           

30,954.00 

2,210.00 

773.86 

.071 

35.00 

1911:  Glue       

5,439,949.60 

395,017.00 

135,998.89 

.073 

34.43 

1912: 
Glue  

4,440,885.40 

316,697.00 

111,022.26 

.0713 

35.00 

Gelatin      

441.00 

37.00 

11.03 

.0839 

29.81 

Glue  

57,184,134.90 

4,049,118.49 

1,429,608.74 

.0708 

35.30 

Gelatin  1  

571,758.00 

36,467.00 

14,289.52 

.0638 

39.18 

Total                                 .  . 

57,755,892.90 

4,085,585.49 

1,443,898.26 

.0707 

35.34 

1  Glue  improperly  reported  by  collectors  of  customs  as  gelatin. 

A  careful  estimate  regarding  the  foregoing  indicates  that  25  per  cent  of  the  impor- 
tations of  glue  valued  at  not  above  10  cents  per  pound  are  mostly  used  for  one  specific 
purpose  and  average  in  value  about  9  cents  per  pound.  Deducting  from  the  above 
totals  this  25  per  cent  shows: 


Aver 

ages. 

Pounds. 

Values. 

Duties  paid. 

Per  unit 
of  quan- 
tity. 

Ad  valo- 
rem rate 
of  duty. 

25  per  cent  of  total  quantity  

14,438,973.20 

$1,299,507.58 

$360,974  33 

Cents. 
0.09 

Per  cent. 
27.78 

Leaves  

43,316,919.70 

2,786,077.91 

1,082,923.90 

.0634 

38.86 

Total,  14  years  

57,755,892  90 

4  085  585  49 

1  443  898  26 

0707 

35  34 

LETTER  OF  JOHN  B.  ORE,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

BOSTON,  January  1,  191S. 
Congressman  WILLIAM  F.  MURRAY, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  CONGRESSMAN:  Referring  to  conversation  on  Saturday 
last  regarding  liquid  fish  glue,  after  careful  investigation  here  in 
Boston,  I  find  that  the  customs  authorities  do  not  keep  a  separate 
record  of  the  importations  of  bone  glue  and  liquid  fish  glue.  I  have, 
however,  found  that  during  the  past  four  years  there  have  been  no 
importations  of  fish  glue  excepting  what~I  imported  myself  from 
St.  Pierre,  Miquelon,  to  Boston  amounting  to  40  barrels,  which  was 
1,627  gallons.  I  imported  this  glue  to  see  what  I  could  do  in  com- 
petition with  manufacturers  of  liquid  fish  glue  in  the  United  States  and 
have  found  that  I  could  not  compote.  There  has  been  no  liquid  fish 
glue  imported  in  here  from  Canada;  whether  there  has  been  any 
importations  to  other  ports  or  not  is  a  question.  There  have  been  no 
importations  in  from  Newfoundland  because  there  has  been  none 


SCHEDULE  A.  217 

i 

PARAGRAPH  23- GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

manufactured  there.  The  only  other  place  that  any  liquid  fish  Hue 
could  come  in  from  would  be  Norway.  It  is  my  opinion  that  there 
is  no  liquid  fish  glue  in  what  I  call  bulk — that  is,  in  5-gallon  kegs 
or  50-gallon  barrels — imported  into  the  United  States  from  any 
place  in  the  world,  as  the  present  duty  is  absolutely  prohibitive. 

I  find  that  the  duty  on  glue  is  1\  cents  per  pound  on  glue  valued 
at  less  than  10  cents  a  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  glue 
valued  at  over  10  cents  a  pound.  Prices  are  based  on  f.  o.  b.  point 
of  shipment.  For  instance,  if  I  shipped  any  glue  in  from  our  factory 
at  Burnt  Islands,  Newfoundland,  the  price  would  be  based  on  f.  o.  b. 
Burnt  Islands.  With  reference  to  duty,  for  example,  a  gallon  of  fish 
glue  weighs  9  pounds  14  ounces,  which  makes  the  duty  between  24 
and  25  cents  per  gallon.  If  there  was  a  duty,  say  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
which  would  be  equal  to  about  10  cents  per  gallon  on  the  cost  of  our 
manufacture,  undoubtedly  we  would  be  able  to  ship  many  thousands 
of  gallons  of  glue  into  the  United  States,  whereby  the  United  States 
Government  would  be  receiving  a  revenue  from  shipments  made  from 
our  factory  into  the  United  States,  which  would  not  only  help  them 
but  would  help  the  dealer  and  consumer,  while  at  the  present  time 
there  are  no  importations  and  they  are  getting  no  revenue  whatever. 
I  sent  Mr.  Gallivan,  in  confidence,  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  one  of  the 
three  largest  liquid  glue  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  showing 
that  they  are  not  able  and  have  not  been  able  to  supply  the  trade. 

I  might  say  that  the  capital  of  $100,000  invested  in  our  business 
in  Newfoundland  comes  entirely  from  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

I  sincerely  believe  that  allowing  our  glue  to  come  into  the  United 
States  with  a  reasonable  duty  will  open  up  a  very  much  larger  field 
and  give  a  number  of  dealers  an  opportunity  of  using  liquid  fish  glue 
who  are  at  present  handicapped  on  account  of  not  being  able  to  get 
same  in  the  United  States. 

If  there  is  any  further  information  or  any  detail  that  I  can  give 
you,  will  be  glad  to  have  you  advise  me. 

I  was  given  to  understand  that  the  Commerce  and  Labor  Bureau, 
statistical  department,  at  Washington  had  considerable  information 
with  reference  to  the  glue  business.  Whether  they  have  any  infor- 
mation regarding  liquid  fish  glue  I  do  not  know. 

I  hope  that  you  are  quite  well,  and,  with  kind  regards, 
Sincerely,  yours, 

JOHN  B.  OBE. 

BRIEF  OF  JOSEPH  DICK,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

I  am  an  American  citizen,  resident  and  voter  of  New  York  City, 
and  engaged  in  importing  German  and  Austrian  bone  glues  in  cake 
form.  I  have  been  engaged  in  this  business  as  the  general  agent  of  a 
German  and  of  an  Austrian  glue  concern  tor  the  last  four  years.  I 
have  no  experience  in  glue  manufacturing.  But  in  the  course  of  my 
business  dealings  with  American  glue  manufacturers  and  glue  jobbers 
I  have  through  them  come  into  possession  of  a  few  elementary  facts 
bearing  upon  the  cost  of  making  American  glues  which,  second-hand 
though  they  be,  derive  their  value  from  their  source,  whose  authentic- 
ity can  not  be  doubted. 


218  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

As  an  American  citizen  I  respectfully  ask  to  be  allowed  to  submit 
to  you  the  knowledge  thus  gained  and  some  other  facts  and  con- 
siderations showing  that  the  present  duty  on  glue  is  exorbitant. 

The  cost  of  manufacturing  an  American  glue'  is  said  by  domestic 
manufacturers  to  vary  between  2J  cents  a  pound  to  3  cents  on  bone 
glues,  and  3  cents  to  3£  cents  a  pound  on  hide  glues.  But  this  cost 
is  not  merely  the  cost  of  labor.  It  includes  all  overhead  expenses 
and  salaries,  all  chemicals,  and  the  fuel  used  in  manufacturing.  In 
fact,  the  cost  of  labor  is  the  smaller  part.  Thus  take,  for  instance, 
one  single  operation,  the  only  one  in  which  each  individual  sheet  of 
glue  is  handled  by  the  worker.  I  mean  the  process  of  drying,  which 
is  the  following: 

From  vats  the  glue  solution  is  drained  into  galvanized  iron  coolers, 
each  holding  about  100  pounds  of  glue  jelly.  Take  500  such  coolers, 
with  altogether  48,000  to  50,000  pounds  of  glue  jelly.  Six  girls  can 
spread  this  jelly  upon  nets,  after  it  is  cut,  in  one  working  day,  pro- 
ducing altogether  9,000  pounds  of  dry  glue.  One  girl,  therefore,  has 
handled  jelly  yielding  1,500  pounds  of  dry  glue.  The  wages  of  the 
girls  are  between  $6  to  $8  a  week.  Taking  them  $7  a  week  as  the 
basis,  each  girl  receives  SI.  17  a  day  for  spreading  upon  the  drying 
nets  enough  glue  jelly  to  yield,  when  dry,  1,500  pounds  of  dry  glue. 
To  spread  glue  jelly  yielding,  when  dry,  1  pound  of  glue  costs,  there- 
fore, less  than  two  twenty-fifths  of  1  cent.  These  figures  apply  to 
bone  glues.  Of  hide  glue,  500  coolers  yield  only  about  7,200  pounds 
of  dry  glue  for  the  six  girls,  so  that  the  cost  of  labor  of  drying  1  pound 
of  hide  glue  is,  per  pound  of  dried  glue,  not  quite  one-tenth  of  1  cent. 
Yet  drying  is  the  only  operation  during  which  each  sheet  is  handled 
by  the  worker.  In  all  other  operations  the  simplest  mechanical  con- 
trivances make  it  possible  to  transform  the  raw  material  and  to  handle 
the  finished  product  in  bulk  so  that  the  cost  of  actual  labor  for  each 
operation  is  barely  appreciable  in  the  value  per  pound  of  the  finished 
product.  The  cost  of  pure  labor,  exclusive  of  overhead  expenses,  of 
chemicals  and  hi  el,  do?s  not  exceed  li  cents  per  pound,  and  is  very 
often  as  low  as  1  cent  per  pound,  according  to  the  quality  of  glue,  and 
particularly  according  to  the  efficiency  of  the  factory.  If  the  duty  on 
glues  below  10  cents  would  be  fixed  even  at  only  1J  cents,  covering 
thus  the  whole  cost  of  labor,  it  only  could  be  done  on  the  supposition 
that  glue  is  manufactured  in  Europe  without  any  labor  cost.  Yet 
the  duty  on  glues  valued  at  less  than  10  cents  is  at  present  2J  cents 
per  pound,  covering  not  only  the  \\koJe  cost  of  labor,  but  all  overhead 
expenses,  chemicals,  and  fuel  in  addition. 

The  dry  glue  produced  by  the  drying  out  of  jelly  is,  for  bone  glues, 
between  20  per  cent  and  35  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  the  jelly,  and 
for  hide  glues  between  8  per  cent  and  20  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  the 
jelly.  In  taking  as  the  basis  of  my  calculation  9,000  pounds  of  dry 
glue,  as  restilting  from  48,000  pounds  of  bone  jelly,  and  7,200  pounds  of 
dry  glue,  as  resulting  from  48,000  pounds  of  hide  jelly,  I  have  figured 
with  the  very  fair  percentage  of  19  per  cent  for  bone  glues  and  14  per 
cent  for  hide  glues.  In  order  to  forestall  pointless  quibbling  that 
might  obscure  the  ival  issue  1  also  want  to  state  that  the  coolers  are 
In  some  factories  they  hold  50  pounds  of  jelly,  in 
others  loo  pound-,  and  sometimes  150  pounds.  But  the  essential 


SCHEDULE   A.  219 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

fact  that  six  girls  handle  during  a  working  day  48,000  pounds  of  jelly 
remains  unchanged. 

Labor,  indeed,  is  a  very  small  part  in  the  value  of  the  glue.  There 
are  glues  in  which  the  cost  of  labor  does  not  amount  to  10  per  cent  of 
the  value  of  the  finished  product.  Anybody  entering  a  glue  factory 
unawares,  even  when  running  at  full  capacity,  is  struck  by  the  com- 
parative absence  of  labor.  Almost  everything  is  done  by  natural 
agencies  and  machinery.  Macerating,  boiling,  cutting,  and  drying 
are  the  chief  operations  and  require  almost  no  labor,  but  only  occa- 
sional watching. 

The  packers,  tanners,  and  fertilizing  manufacturers,  with  all  of 
whom  glue  is  only  a  by-product,  manufacture  certainly  60  per  cent 
or  more  of  the  glue  manufactured  in  this  country.  I  inclose  a  com- 
plete list  of  American  glue  factories. 

I  also  inclose  my  sworn  statement  that  never  since  I  have  been 
general  agent  for  the  European  glue  concern,  nor  ever  before,  has  the 
importation  of  glues  coming  from  that  concern,  whether  sold  direct 
or  through  me,  reached  2  per  cent  of  the  glue  consumption  of  the 
United  States.  I  am  ready  to  prove  this  by  my  books.  Yet  I  sell 
considerably  more  than  other  foreign  glue  concerns  and  their  agents. 

Sometimes  the  argument  is  being  advanced  by  American  glue 
manufacturers  that  so  little  glue  enters  into  each  individual  piece  of 
manufactured  goods  that  the  raised  price  of  glue  is  hardly  felt  in  the 
price  of  the  finished  merchandise;  but  this  is  misleading.  The 
United  States  consumes  yearly  about  50,000  tons  of  glue  of  a  con- 
servatively estimated  value  of  $12,000,000.  One  million  dollars  of 
this  saved  to  the  people  of  this  country  by  the  imposing  of  a  duty, 
the  purpose  of  which  would  be  to  insure  revenue,  or  at  most  to  cover 
the  real  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor,  but  not  to  artificially  boost 
prices  for  the  benefit  of  a  class,  will  be  part  of  the  many  millions  simi- 
larly saved  in  other  Hues  of  industry.  Please  to  consider  that  there 
is  literally  no  article  manufactured  in  any  line  into  whose  composi- 
tion glue  does  not  enter  at  some  stage.  Glue  is  the  one  universal 
requisite  in  all  industries.  But  supposing  even  that,  for  instance, 
the  value  of  glue  entering  into  a  piano  does  not  exceed  $2;  that  is  still 
no  argument  for  the  maintenance  of  an  excessive  duty.  The  value 
of  celluloid,  of  felt,  or  of  wood  filler  and  stain,  or  shellac,  rubber,  or 
gilding  used  in  the  manufacture  of  a  piano  is  less  than  50  cents.  As 
the  manufacturers  of  all  of  these  materials  also  want  to  be  "pro- 
tected," the  aggregate  protection  thus  loaded  on  the  consumer  is 
very  considerable.  And  then  while  glue  is  being  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  a  piano  it  has  also  been  used  in  the  manufacture  of  most 
of  the  materials  out  of  which  a  piano  is  made.  The  felt  has  glue  in 
it:  the  wood  filler  is  prepared  with  glue;  the  metal  parts  of  the  piano 
are  polished  on  wheels,  an  important  part  of  which  is  glue.  The 
varnishing  of  the  piano  can  not  be  done  without  the  use  of  sandpaper, 
which  is  also  made  with  glue.  Altogether,  there  is  considerably 
more  glue  used  than  appears  on  the  surface. 

I  have  submitted  here  some  technical  considerations  in  favor  of 
the  reduction  of  duty  on  glue;  but  there  are  some  considerations 
whose  weight  is  much  greater.  As  a  revenue  measure  a  tariff  law 
has  a  warranty  in  the  Constitution;  but  as  a  means  of  keeping  on 
their  feet  at  public  expense  industries  that  might  stand  by  them- 


220  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

selves  if  they  were  driven  to  it,  the  tariff  law  is  justified  neither  by 
the  Constitution  nor  by  moral  law. 

There  is  one  hard  fact  less  weighty  than  abstractions,  but  proving 
more.  American  glue  manufacturers  are  selling  their  glues  in 
Europe.  Several  of  them  have  resident  agents  in  different  European 
countries.  And  they  are  selling  their  glues  in  spite  of  the  duties  in 
Europe.  They  are  selling  their  glues  either  at  prices  prevailing  here, 
in  plain  contradiction  of  their  assertion  that  they  can  not  compete 
with  the  foreign  goods,  or  they  are  selling  their  glues  at  lower  prices 
than  here,  thus  following  the  rule  generally  observed  by  our  "pro- 
tected" manufacturers  of  giving  the  lower  price  to  the  foreigner  and 
piling  it  upon  their  compatriots.  Will  these  ever  be  allowed  to  do 
with  their  dollar  as  they  please,  or  will  they  always  be  compelled  to 
give  it  to  needy  interests  that  must  be  "protected"  ? 

STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 

City  of  New  York,  County  of  New  York,  ss: 

Joseph  Dick,  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  resides  at  No.  1058 
Southern  Boulevard,  city  of  New  York,  and  that  his  place  of  busi- 
ness is  at  No.  198  Broadway,  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  city  of 
New  York. 

And  upon  oath  declares  that  the  importation  of  glue  to  the  United 
States  of  America  coming  from  European  concerns  whose  general 
agency  he  has,  whether  such  glues  are  sold  directly  or  whether  the 
same  are  sold  by  him  as  representative  of  such  European  concerns, 
has  at  no  time  exceeded  or  reached  2  per  cent  of  the  entire  glue  con- 
sumption in  the  United  States. 

JOSEPH  DICK. 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  31st  day  of  December,  1912. 

SAMUEL  ZUCKERMAN,  Jr., 
Commissioner  of  Deeds,  New  York  City. 

BRIEF  OF  W.  E.  MILLER,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

COIGNET   &    CO., 

17  State  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  4,  1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ox  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  As  per  your  postal  of  the  3d  instant,  giving  me  an 
appointment  to  appear  before  you  on  the  7th  instant,  I  beg  to  file 
with  you  the  following  brief,  as  per  your  suggestion  : 

I  recommend  a  change  in  paragraph  23,  Schedule  A,  from 

e  present  rales     A  duty  of   1  cent    per  pound  on  gelatins,   glue, 

fish  glue,  etc.,  valued  at  and  under  10  cents  per  pound,  1 

cent  per  pound  duty  instead  of  1\  cents,  for  the  reason  that  the  domes- 

ic  manufacturers  do  not  need  this  protection  any  longer,  inasmuch 

Co.  are  now  selling  one  of  their  low  grades  of 

t<>  the  house  of  Pervilhac  Silk  Finishing,  of  Lvon,  France,  at  a 

lower  price  than  they  sell  the  very  same  grado  in  the  United  States. 

in  I. you  includes  the  cost  of  transportation  to  the  city  of 

1  recommend  a  change  from  25  per  cent  to  15  per  cent  on 


SCHEDULE   A.  221 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

the  above-mentioned  goods  valued  at  above  10  cents  and  not  above 
35  cents,  inasmuch  as  the  domestic  manufacturers  can  produce  gela- 
tins of  sufficiently  good  quality  to  eliminate  the  necessity  of  a  25 
per  cent  protection.  I  take  this  from  the  fact  that  the  Michigan  Car- 
bon Co.,  of  Detroit,  Mich.,  now  produces  a  gelatin  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  gelatin  capsules,  which  they  sell  at  about  38  cents  per  pound, 
which  is  superior  for  this  purpose  to  French  gelatins  selling  at  about 
the  same  price  in  France.  This  is  substantiated  by  the  fact  that  in 
the  past  we  sold  enormous  quantities  to  the  capsule  industry  in  this 
country,  where  now  we  sell  very  little,  entirely  due  to  the  superiority 
and  low  price  of  the  domestic  manufactured  article. 

I  recommend  a  rate  of  15  per  cent  instead  of  15  cents  per  pound 
and  20  per  cent  on  the  above-mentioned  articles  valued  above  35 
cents,  for  the  reason  that  this  classification  includes  photographic 
gelatins,  of  which  there  are  none  made  in  this  country,  therefore  no 
protection  is  needed. 

No.  2.  This  change  will  undoubtedly  materially  increase  the  im- 
portations, certainly  sufficient  to  produce  as  much  if  not  more  revenue 
than  the  present  rates.  If  this  result  is  not  arrived  at,  at  any  rate  the 
consumers  in  this  country  will  be  materially  benefited,  because  the 
competition  which  the  importers  will  be  enabled  to  give  the  domestic 
manufacturers  would  compel  them  to  reduce  their  prices,  and  not 
ask  the  exorbitant  profit  they  now  ask. 

No.  3.  I  estimate  the  increase  specified  above  from  an  experience 
of  18  years  in  the  glue  and  gelatin  importing  business,  during  which  I 
have  seen  a  great  decrease  in  the  importations  of  a  number  of  grades 
of  foreign  goods  which  would  be  recovered  by  reduced  rates. 

No.  4.  In  paragraph  23  of  Schedule  A,  the  classification  of  gelatin 
in  sheets,  emulsions,  etc.,  is  ambiguous,  inasmuch  as  raw  gelatin  is 
originally  produced  in  sheets  and  should  not  be  confounded  in  any  way 
with  that  manufacture  of  gelatin  known  as  " gelatin  sheets";  there- 
fore, I  would  decidedly  recommend  that  this  classification  be  made 
more  specific,  at  least  in  the  elimination  of  the  word  "in." 

No.  5.  I  beg  to  suggest  that  inasmuch  as  glues,  gelatins,  etc.,  are 
susceptible  to  the  absorption  of  moisture  while  crossing  the  ocean 
which  increases  their  weight  for  which  we  are  charged  an  additional 
duty  under  the  present  tariff,  and  as  this  increase  in  weight  dries  out 
after  the  goods  have  been  in  our  warehouses  for  a  short  tune,  this 
additional  duty  is  a  total  loss,  and  the  elimination  of  this  additional 
duty  on  all  increase  in  weight  on  glues  and  gelatins,  etc.,  up  to  1\  per 
cent,  will  be  equitable. 

Respectfully,  yours,  W.  E.  MILLER. 

PROTEST  OF  BAUGH  &  SONS  CO.,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  AGAINST 
THE  PROPOSED  REVISION  AND  REDUCTION  OF  IMPORT 
DUTIES  UPON  GLUE. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

In  the  matter  of  proposed  revision  and  amendment  of  Schedule  A 
of  the  present  tariff  act  so  as  to  reduce  the  duties  payable  upon  im- 
portations of  gelatin,  glue,  glue  size,  and  other  kindred  products,  and 


222  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLTJE,  ETC. 

so  as  to  make,  as  suggested  in  House  of  Kepresentatives  bill  No.  20182, 
the  tariff  act  read: 

Gelatin,  glue,  and  glue  size,  valued  not  above  ten  cents  per  pound,  one  cent  per 
pound;  valued  above  ten  cents  per  pound  and  not  above  twenty-five  cents  per  pound, 
fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem;  valued  above  twenty-five  cents  per  pound,  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem;  manufactures  of  gelatin  or  manufactures  of  which  gelatin  is 
the  component  material  of  chief  value,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  isinglass 
and  prepared  fish  sounds,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

as  shown  by  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  page  75. 

Baugh  &  Sons  Co.  is  a  corporation  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
is  a  large  manufacturer  of  glue  and  glue  products,  and  has  a  great  deal 
of  capital  invested  in  this  industry.  The  company  is  not  connected  or 
affiliated  in  any  manner  whatsoever  with  any  trust  or  combination. 
It  is  an  absolutely  independent  concern,  competing  with  any  and  all 
manufacturers  of  glue  and  glue  products  within  the  eastern  markets 
where  its  business  is  conducted. 

The  company  has  a  considerable  number  of  men  employed  in  its 
plant  and  their  average  working  day  is  10  hours  a  day,  and  the  wages 
paid  the  skilled  men  are  SI 3. 50  per  week  and  those  paid  the  unskilled 
men,  commonly  called  laborers,  are  at  the  rate  of  $10  per  week. 

The  tariff  act  as  it  stands  to-day  and  which  subjects  glue  to  a  duty 
of  2£  cents  a  pound  is  barely  sufficient  to  afford  a  reasonable  protection 
to  the  American  manufacturer,  and  a  duty  of  1  cent  a  pound  would  be 
totally  insufficient.  To  reduce  the  duty  to  that  amount  would  give 
an  enormous  advantage  to  the  foreign  manufacturer  of  glue  and  glue 
products,  because  a  duty  of  1  cent  a  pound  would  not  begin  to  cover 
the  difference  in  cost  of  production  in  America  and  in  foreign  coun- 
tries. From  the  best  information  obtainable  and  after  an  exhaustive 
examination  into  the  conditions  existing  in  America  and  foreign  manu- 
factories, it  can  be  conservatively  stated  that  the  difference  to-day 
between  the  cost  of  manufacturing  a  pound  of  glue  in  America  and  in 
Europe  is  from  2.2  cents  to  2.8  cents.  Of  course,  a  great  deal  of  this 
difference  in  the  cost  of  production  is  due  to  the  low  rate  of  wages  paid 
in  European  countries  compared  with  those  paid  in  America,  the 
European  workingmen  receiving  wages  at  least  40  to  50  per  cent  below 
those  paid  in  America,  and  in  addition  the  cost  of  crude  materials  is 
much  lower  abroad  than  in  this  country. 

The  average  rate  of  duty  on  glue  and  gelatin  under  all  tariff  bills 
for  the  last  10  years  or  more  has  been  considerably  less  than  the  aver- 
age rate  of  duty  on  other  dutiable  products  imported  into  this  country, 
and,  therefore,  there  should  not  be  a  reduction  in  the  duty  which 
would  hamper  to  a  greater  extent  the  efforts  of  the  American  manu- 
facturers of  glue  and  gelatin  products  to  compete  with  the  foreign 
manufacturers. 

Even  under  the  existing  tarifT,  importations  of  glue  and  gelatin 
products  have  increased  during  the  past  three  years,  and  there  has 
naturally  been  a  corresponding  increase  in  revenue,  and  this  proves 
conclusively  that  the  rates  of  duty  fixed  in  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill  do 
not  prohibit  importations,  but  on  the  contrary  freely  permit  foreign 
manufacturers  to  sell  their  product  in  this  country  in  competition 
with  the  American  manufacturer.  It  is  evident  that  a  reduction  in 


SCHEDULE   A.  223 

PARAGRAPH  23— GELATIN,  GLUE,  ETC. 

the  rate  of  duty  from  2£  cents  a  pound  to  1  cent  per  pound  would  give 
such  a  great  advantage  in  this  competition  to  the  foreign  manufac- 
turer as  to  render  him  the  easy  victor  over  the  American  manufacturer 
who  has  invested  his  capital  in  this  country  and  gives  employment 
to  the  citizens  of  this  country  and  at  higher  rates  of  wages  than 
those  paid  to  the  foreign  workman. 

But  any  argument  that  a  reduction  in  the  duty  on  importations  of 
glue  and  gelatin  products,  and  especially  glue,  would  result  in  a  de- 
crease in  the  cost  thereof  to  the  consumer,  and,  therefore,  a  general 
saving  to  the  public,  is  not  entitled  to  any  weight  whatsoever.  To 
reduce  the  duty  on  glue  might  well  result,  and  no  doubt  would,  in  the 
flooding  of  the  American  market  with  foreign-made  glue  and  even  in 
the  dismantling  of  the  American  plants,  which  could  hardly  hope  to 
compete  with  the  foreign  product,  but  the  only  persons  who  would 
feel  any  advantage  would  be  those  who  purchase  glue  or  gelatin  in 
large  quantities,  because  the  cost  of  glue,  for  example,  as  a  component 
part  of  other  products  is  relatively  so  small  that  it  may  be  considered 
as  a  negligible  quantity  so  far  as  affecting  the  cost  of  any  article  into 
the  manufacture  of  wnich  it  enters  is  concerned.  For  instance,  the 
glue  which  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  a  valuable  piece  of  furniture 
may  cost  but  a  few  cents,  while  a  straw  hat  selling  for  several  dollars 
requires  no  more  glue  than  that  of  a  value  of  about  one-half  a  cent. 

Surely  it  can  not  and  ought  not  to  be  said  that  the  larger  purchaser 
of  glue,  with  protection  under  other  clauses  of  the  tariff  act  and 
who  uses  glue  m  the  manufacture  of  his  products,  should  be  given 
further  aid  and  protection  by  the  Congress  reducing  the  duties  on 
glue  to  such  an  extent  as  to  drive  the  American  manufacturer  out  of 
the  industry  and  enabling  the  larger  purchaser  of  glue  to  obtain  his 
supply  at  a  price  from  the  foreigner  at  which  the  American  can  not 
manufacture  and  vend  it. 

The  protestant  here  is  not,  as  above  stated,  a  member  nor  has  it 
any  connection  with  any  trust  or  combination.  Furthermore,  from 
long  experience  and  from  an  actual  knowledge  of  the  conditions 
existing  in  the  industry,  it  can  be  stated  positively  that  the  manufac- 
ture and  selling  of  glue  and  glue  products  is  not  controlled  in  this 
country  by  any  trust  or  combination. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  the  packing  houses  may  he  engaged  hi  the 
manufacture  of  glue  from  hides,  but  at  least  65  per  cent  of  the  glue 
and  gelatin  produced  in  this  country  is  made  in  manufactories  that 
are  entirely  independent  and  not  owned  or  controlled  by  any  pack- 
ing house  concerns  or  trust  or  combinations  of  any  kind. 

To  reduce  the  tariff  would  be  ruinous  to  the  American  manufacturer 
of  glue,  but  it  would  be  a  highly  advantageous  happening  for  the  only 
Glue  Trust  in  the  world,  a  German-Austrian  syndicate,  which  may 
now  be  said  on  good  authority  to  control  practically  all  of  the  glue 
factories  of  any  consequence  in  Germany,  Austria,  Belgium,  Italy, 
France,  Russia,  and  other  European  countries— a  trust  so  powerful 
that  it  absolutely  regulates  the  production  for  Europe  by  regulating 
the  output  of  its  factories  and  dominates  and  controls  the  selling  price 
of  glue  and  gelatin  products  throughout  Europe.  This  gigantic  trust, 
with  an  enormous  capital  and  economical  methods  of  conducting  its 
large  business,  is  so  powerful  that  competition  by  the  various  inde- 


224  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  24^-GLYCERIN. 

pendent  concerns  in  this  country  with  it  would  be  perfectly  impos- 
sible, and  the  result  would  be  that  this  trust  would  make  this  country 
a  dumping  ground  for  its  surplus  stock,  and  the  American  manufac- 
turer and  his  workmen  wouloT  be  in  the  position  of  seeing  themselves 
without  a  market  for  their  joint  product  at  a  price  which  would  make 
it  reasonable  for  them  to  continue  to  carry  on  business. 

The  competition  between  the  American  manufacturers  of  glue  has 
for  some  years  past  and  now  is  so  keen  and  severe  that  the  result  has 
been  to  keep  the  margin  of  profit  to  the  lowest  possible  minimum, 
and  to-day  it  can  positively  be  asserted  that  the  approximate  return 
on  capital  invested  in  "glue"  is  not  over  8  per  cent,  and  the  great 
competition  has  resulted  in  keeping  prices  to  a  uniform  and  low  level, 
and  during  the  past  three  years  glue  is  the  only  article  in  the  list  of 
animal  products  that  has  not  advanced  in  price.  The  price  of  raw 
material,  on  the  other  hand,  has  greatly  advanced,  and  the  prices 
paid  during  the  past  year  for  raw  materials  were  higher  than  any 
average  for  over  20  years,  and  approximately  10  per  cent  higher  in 
America  than  in  Europe. 

It  is  earnestly  urged,  therefore,  that  the  duty  upon  importation  of 
glue  be  not  changed  from  those  existing  at  the  present  time,  for  if 
the  downward  revision  proposed  should  be  made  it  will  inevitably 
result  in  great  harm  not  only  to  the  man  with  his  capital  invested  in 
the  industry  but  also  to  the  many  American  citizens  engaged  in  the 
industry  and  earning  their  livings  and  the  livelihood  of  their  families 
therefrom. 

BAUGH  &  SONS  Co. 
B.  H.  BREWSTER, 

Vice  President. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  January  8,  1913. 

PARAGRAPH  24. 

Glycerin,  crude,  not  purified,  one  cent  per  pound;  refined,  three  cents  per 
pound. 

For  crude  glycerin,  see  also  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  108. 

GLYCERIN. 

BRIEF  OF  MARX  &  RAWOLLE,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  REGARDING 
DUTY  ON  REFINED  GLYCERIN. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4,  1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives. 

GENTLEMEN:  Marx  &  Rawolle,  of  No.  100  William  Street,  Borough 
of  Manhattan,  city  of  New  York,  a  corporation  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  refined  glycerin,  does  hereby  protest  against  the  reduction 
of  the  rate  of  duty  on  refined  glycerin  as  was  proposed  by  H.  R. 
2,  section  36,  from  3  cents  to  2  cents  per  pound,  and  against  any 
change  in  the  rate  of  duty  on  glycerin,  whereby  a 'difference  in  the 
rate  of  duty  between  the  crude  and  the  refined  is  less  than  2  cents 
per  pound. 

After  a  full  consideration  of  the  matter  in  the  hearings  had  on 
tunil  measures  heretofore  adopted  it  was  conceded  that  the  rate  of 
duty  on  the  refined  article  must  exceed  the  rate  on  the  crude  in  at 


SCHEDULE   A.  225 

PABAGBAPH  24r— GLYCEBIN. 

least  a  difference  of  2  cents  as  a  fair  and  just  margin  to  protect  our 
home  refiners. 

Under  the  Wilson  bill  that  difference  was  maintained  and  the 
Dingley  Tariff  Act  continued  it,  as  has  also  the  Payne  Tariff  Act, 
and  we  submit  that  no  change  has  since  occurred  in  the  product 
itself  nor  in  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  production  at  home 
and  abroad  to  make  necessary  the  proposed  reduction  of  1  cent  per 
pound  in  the  rate  of  duty  on  the  refined  article  without  any  reduction 
ui  the  rate  on  the  crude  article. 

Believing  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  be  a  reduc- 
tion that  will  meet  the  exact  line,  if  possible,  of  the  difference  in  the 
cost  of  production  at  home  and  abroad  and  not  to  overthrow  the  pro- 
tection policy  in  force  for  so  many  years,  and  as  a  result  of  which 
the  refining  industry  in  this  country  was  encouraged  and  made 
possible,  we  feel  reasonably  sure  that  a  thorough  consideration  of  the 
matter  will  show  that  this  proposed  reduction  will  be  unjust  and 
unfair  to  the  refiner  in  this  country. 

The  bulk  of  crude  glycerin  imported  contains  only  about  80  per 
cent  anhydrous  crude  glycerin,  the  remaining  20  per  cent  consisting 
of  salt,  water,  and  impurities,  and  as  the  duty  is  imposed  on  the~ 
weight  of  the  material  as  received,  there  is  in  effect  a  duty  of  1.25 
cents  per  pound  on  the  crude  article.  Refined  glycerin  as  made  in 
Europe  contains  from  98  to  99  per  cent  actual  glycerin,  no  salt,  and 
only  from  1  to  2  per  cent  water,  so  that  in  reality  the  only  protection 
the  refiner  in  this  country  will  get  if  the  proposed  amendment  goes 
into  effect  will  be  about  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per  pound,  which  is 
not  a  sufficient  margin,  because  of  the  higher  cost  of  labor  in  this 
country,  to  protect  the  home  manufacturer  in  his  own  market  against 
foreign  competition. 

The  cost  of  labor  employed  in  this  business  is  almost  50  per  cent 
less  in  Europe  than  here,  unskilled  labor  in  Europe  receiving  from  10 
to  14  cents  per  hour  and  skilled  labor  from  20  to  25  cents  per  hour, 
while  in  this  country  unskilled  labor  receives  from  18  to  22i  cents 
per  hour  and  skilled  labor  from  30  to  35  cents  per  hour.  The  other 
elements  of  the  cost  of  production  are  as  low  as  the  strictest  attention 
and  improvements  in  methods  and  machinery  can  make  them. 

It  is  to  enable  the  home  manufacturer  to  continue  the  present  rate 
of  wages  that  a  difference  of  at  least  2  cents  per  pound  between  the 
rate  of  duty  on  the  crude  and  refined  article  is  demanded  or  otherwise 
the  cost  of  labor  will  have  to  be  reduced  to  enable  the  refiners  here 
to  meet  foreign  competition,  because  in  a  fair  contest,  all  the  condi- 
tions except  the  price  of  labor  being  equal,  the  producing  country 
paying  the  highest  wages  can  not  successfully  compete  and  must 
ultimately  be  defeated. 

A  reference  to  the  Canadian  tariff  will  show  the  extent  to  which 
the  difference  in  duty  between  the  crude  and  refined  article  must  go 
to  protect  the  Canadian  refiner  against  foreign  competition.  In 
Canada  crude  glycerin  is  admitted  free  of  duty,  while  the  refined 
glycerin,  if  imported  from  England  and  its  colonies,  must  pay  a 
duty  of  15  per  cent,  and  if  imported  from  the  United  States  and  other 
countries  a  duty  of  17i  per  cent. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 15 


226  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  24r-GLYCERIN. 

The  report  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Schedule  A,  para- 
graph  36,  page  77,  shows  that  the  duty  at  the  rate  of  1  cent  per  pound 
on  the  crude  glycerin,  based  on  estimates  for  a  12-month  period 
under  H.  R.  20182,  equals  a  duty  of  9.26  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  at 
the  rate  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  the  refined  glycerin,  based  on  esti- 
mates for  like  period,  equals  a  duty  of  9.75  per  cent  ad  valorem,  a 
difference  of  less  than  one-half  of  1  per  cent  ad  valorem  between  the 
rate  on  crude  and  refined  glycerin. 

We  do  therefore  protest  against  this  proposed  reduction  of  the  rate 
of  duty  on  refined  glycerin  as  proposed  by  H.  R.  20182,  as  manifestly 
unjust  and  unfair  to  the  refiner  at  home  in  that  it  will  not  provide 
protection  sufficient  to  enable  the  manufacture  of  refined  glycerin  at 
home  to  meet  foreign  competition  on  a  fair  and  equitable  basis. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MARX  &  RAWOLLE, 
By  H.  CALDER,  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  HARSHAW  FULLER    &   GOODWIN   CO., 
CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

HARSHAW  FULLER  &  GOODWIN  Co., 

Cleveland,  January  6, 1913. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  request  that  no  reduction  be  made  in  the 
duties  on  this  article  but  that  the  paragraph  be  amended  to  read  as 
follows : 

Glycerin,  crude,  not  purified,  1  cent  per  pound;  refined,  3  cents 
per  pound;  usual  iron  drums  as  containers,  free. 

For  the  past  15  years  we  have  operated  a  factory  at  Elyria,  Ohio, 
in  connection  with  our  chemical  works  there,  in  which  we  have  taken 
crude  glycerin,  imported  from  foreign  countries,  and  by  a  process  of 
refining  nave  converted  it  into  refined  or  chemically  pure  glycerin. 

The  operation  of  any  factory  within  the  United  States  where 
imported  raw  material  is  used,  involves  the  transportation  of  that 
raw  material  from  abroad  to  the  point  where  the  factory  is  located. 
This  transportation  charge  is  on  the  gross  amount  of  such  raw  mate- 
rial, and  any  loss  of  such  raw  material  in  manufacture  involves  a 
freight  expense  which  the  imported  manufactured  goods  does  not  bear. 
This  loss  in  refining  glycerin  is  approximately  20  per  cent. 

There  must  also  be  considered  the  difference  in  manufacturing 
costs,  including  added  cost  of  buildings,  machinery,  labor,  and  general 
expense  of  carry  big  on  the  business  upon  the  plane  of  American  life 
in  contrast  with  that  obtaining  abroad. 

In  carrying  on  the  business  in  Elyria,  Ohio,  of  converting  crude 
glycerin  into  the  high  quality  of  refined  glycerin  required  by  the  pure 
food  and  drugs  law  of  the  United  States,  a  difference  of  at  least  2 
cents  pci;  pound  between  the  duties  on  crude  glycerin  and  refined 
glycerin  is  positively  required,  and  even  then  the  business  is  only 
moderately  profit  aide. 

During  the  year  1912  there  were  produced  in  our  factory  at  Elyria 
and  distributed  throughout  the  United  States  approximately  5,000,000 
pounds  of  refined  glycerin.  The  gross  profit  on  this  business  did  not 
exceed  9  per  cent,  leaving  a  net  profit,  after  deducting  cost  of  labor, 


SCHEDULE   A.  227 

PARAGRAPH  25-  INDIGO. 

fuel,  plant  depreciation,  taxes,  insurance,  buying  and  selling  expense, 
etc.,  of  possibly  4  per  cent. 

It  can  readily  be  seen  that  any  change  in  duties,  reducing  the  dif- 
ferential duties  between  the  crude  and  refined  products,  would  com- 
pel us  to  close  our  factory  in  this  country  and,  if  we  desired  to  continue 
the  business  of  manufacturing  refined  glycerin  for  distribution  in  this 
country,  to  build  a  factory  abroad. 

Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909  the  iron  drums  used 
as  containers  for  glycerin  were  admitted  free,  but  since  the  enactment 
of  this  law  the  Treasury  Department  has  collected  a  duty  of  30  per 
cent,  under  paragraph  151  of  Schedule  C,  which  reads:  Cylindrical 
or  tubular  tanks  or  vessels,  for  holding  gas,  liquids,  or  other  material, 
whether  full  or  empty,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem."  Under  this  ruling 
the  importers  of  crude  glycerin  have  been  obliged  to  pay  this  duty, 
which  is  equivalent  to  approximately  $1.75  per  drum  or  one-quarter 
of  a  cent  per  pound  on  glycerin  contents,  and  this  is,  in  effect,  an 
additional  duty  on  glycerin,  for  in  selling  these  drums  the  price  real- 
ized was  the  same  as  American-made  drums,  resulting  in  a  loss  to 
the  manufacturers  of  refined  glycerin  of  approximately  the  amount  of 
the  duty. 

It  is  our  contention  that  the  framers  of  the  law  never  intended  to 
impose  this  duty  on  the  regular  drums  used  as  containers  of  glycerin, 
but  the  Treasury  Department  have  held  otherwise  under  the  above- 
named  schedule. 

Respectfully,  RALPH  L.  FULLER,  Secretary. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives ,  Washington,  D.  C. 

PARAGBAPH   25. 

Indigo  extracts  or  pastes,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  indigo, 
cannined,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

INDIGO. 

STATEMENT  OF  E.  C.  KLIPSTEIN,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  A.  KLIP- 
STEIN  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  firm 
of  A.  Klipstein  &  Co.,  of  New  York.  We  are  importers,  and  conse- 
quently we  have  not  come  here  to  say  that  any  of  the  things  you  have 
done  or  are  going  to  do  are  going  to  ruin  us.  We  have  been  up 
against  it  for  the  last  40  years  on  the  tariff;  they  have  all  been 
against  us. 

But  what  I  do  want  to  call  to  your  attention  is  the  necessity  for 
clearness  and  precision  in  drawing  the  paragraphs  of  the  tariff.  In 
paragraph  38  of  the  proposed  law,  which  refers  to  indigo  and  its 
products,  this  paragraph  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  paragraph  under 
the  present  law,  the  Payne  law,  and  as  that  paragraph  was  under  the 
Dingley  law,  except  that  it  contained  the  word  indigo"  in  addition 
to  '  indigo  paste"  and  "extracts  of  indigo." 

We  are  now  importing  some  new  products  of  indigo,  new  colors 
that  are  directly  produced  from  indigo.  We  were  importing  these 


228  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  25— INDIGO. 

products  under  the  Dingley  bill,  but  we  brought  them  in  as  indigo 
paste,  at  three  quarters  of  a  cent  a  pound.  The  present  law  contains 
exactly  the  same  provision  as  the  DingJey  bill.  It  reads  exactly  the 
same  way,  but  as  the  first  importation  came  in  under  this  law,  the 
duty  of  30  per  cent  was  assessed  on  this  stuff  as  an  aniline  color. 

We  immediately  protested,  and  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers 
decided  hi  our  favor,  that  the  duty  should  be  three  quarters  of  a  cent 
a  pound.  The  Government  attorney  appealed  it  to  the  customs 
court,  and  the  customs  court  decided  that  the  attorney  had  no  case, 
and  threw  it  out  of  court.  The  customs  attorney  then  made  up  a  new 
case,  and  brought  it  before  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers. 

The  first  importation  came  in  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  present 
law,  and  it  is  not  out  of  the  customhouse  yet.  We  do  not  know 
to-day  whether  we  are  going  to  pay  on  the  stuff  that  we  have  im- 
ported during  the  past  two  years  three  quarters  of  a  cent  a  pound  or 
whether  we  are  going  to  pay  30  per  cent  as  an  aniline  color.  We  can 
not  make  the  price  to  the  consumer  what  we  think  we  ought  to  make, 
and  it  acts  as  a  disadvantage  to  us,  as  compared  with  similar  dyes 
that  are  brought  in  by  other  people  that  come  under  another  list. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  All  indigo  that  is  imported  now  is  artificial  indigo, 
made  out  of  coal  tar  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  There  is  very  little  of  anything  else. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  indigo  has  been  driven  out  of  the  market. 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  In  the  past  year,  the  last  drop  in  price  on  that 
received  from  the  Swiss  was  from  16  to  15. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  law  as  proposed  is: 

"  Coal-tar  dyes  or  colors  not  especially  provided  for  *  *  *  25 
per  cent  ad  valorem." 

But  indigo  is  especially  provided  for  at  10  per  cent.  How  could 
there  be  a  question  whether  indigo  was  a  coal-tar  dye  or  color  or  an 
intermediate  product  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  This  dye  we  are  bringing  in  is  not  an  indigo 
itself.  It  is  a  bromide  of  indigo;  it  is  a  direct  derivative. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Then  it  would  be  extract. 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Extract  or  paste.  But  that  word  "paste"  is 
indefinite.  What  does  it  mean  ?  It  used  to  mean  sulphate  of  indigo, 
which  is  used  very  little  now.  Bromide  of  indigo  has  come  Into  large 
and  important  use,  and  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  distinction. 

What  I  propose  is  to  treat  indigo  exactly  the  same  as  alizarine  is 
treated.  Alizarine  is  one  of  the  fast  dyestuffs,  and  so  is  indigo, 
They  have  always  been  handled  in  the  tariffs  since  1883  on  the  free 
list,  for  the  benefit  of  cotton  manufacturers.  There  is  no  reason  why 
indigo  should  not  be  treated  the  same  as  alizarine. 

Paragraph  No.  6  reads  as  follows:  "Alizarine,  natural  or  artificial, 
and  dyes  derived  from  alizarine  or  from  anthracene." 

Indigo,  in  the  natural  condition,  or  as  paste,  and  sulphate  of  indigo 
do  not  mean  anything  at  all.  Isatin  corresponds  to  anthracene.  I 
think  the  tariff  should  read  "Indigo,  or  dyes  derived  from  indigo  or 
isatin."  As  I  said,  isatin  corresponds  to  anthracene.  You  would 
be  treating  indigo  as  you  treat  alizarine,  and  you  would  remove 
the  uncertainty. 


SCHEDULE  A.  229 

PARAGRAPH  25— INDIGO. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  many  of  the  coal-tar  dyes  or  colors  would  that 
remove  from  the  25  per  cent  list  and  bring  them  down  as  a  derivative 
of  indigo  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  It  would  not  remove  any.  All  the  dyes  that  are 
there  now  would  remain.  But,  as  I  say,  this  word  "isatin"  prac- 
tically corresponds  to  anthracene  in  regard  to  alizarin. 

I  am  not  asking  or  opposing  a  duty  on  these  dyes.  If  you  put  a 
duty  on  this  class  of  dyestuff  I  do  not  believe  it  would  make  very 
much  difference.  Nobody  would  object  very  much,  and  you  would 
get  $180,000  revenue;  you  would  get  twice  as  much  revenue  from 
indigo  as  from  anthracene,  because  there  is  about  $1,200,000  from 
indigo  and  about  $600,000  from  anthracene,  etc. 

As  I  have  said,  the  word  "paste"  is  very  indefinite.  You  might 
just  as  well  use  "chocolate"  or  "ice  cream."  So  much  for  that. 
That  is  all  I  have  to  say  about  that. 

There  is  another  paragraph,  No.  50,  that  covers  alizarin  oil,  alizarin 
assistant.  I  have  it  here,  and  I  will  read  the  first  three  or  four  lines, 
to  make  myself  intelligible : 

Alizarin  assistant,  sulphoricinoleic  acid,  and  ricinoleic  acid,  and  soaps  containing 
castor  oil,  any  of  the  foregoing  in  whatever  form,  and  all  other  alizarin  assistants  and 
all  soluble  greases  used  in  the  process  of  softening,  dyeing,  or  finishing,  not  specially 
provided  for. 

And  so  forth. 

Alizarin  assistant  was  put  into  the  tariff  in  the  McKinley  bill.  It 
was  not  even  shown  in  1883  what  it  was  made  of  exactly.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  alizarin  assistant,  the  words  used,  used  to  apply  as  well  to 
sulphonated  castor  oil  used  in  dying  alizarin,  and  sometimes  a  little 
olive  oil  was  used. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  That  is  the  turkey  red  dye  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Yes.  There  was  a  man  in  Moscow,  named  Miller 
Jacobs,  that  got  a  patent  on  it;  it  was  bought,  and  there  was  a  dis- 
pute. That  is  the  reason  why  alizarin  assistant  is  quoted  always  in 
the  tariff  here  with  castor  oil.  It  was  put  in  at  the  time  of  the  Mc- 
Kinley bill  on  account  of  this  dispute  over  the  Miller  Jacobs  patent. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  use  of  sulphonated  oilsJs  one  hundred  times 
greater  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  McKinley  oill.  Not  only  that, 
but  they  are  sulphonating  a  great  many  other  oils.  In  the  last  two 
or  three  years  more  particularly  they  have  been  sulphonating  fish 
oils,  cod  oils,  and  using  them  in  the  leather  business.  The  con- 
sumption in  the  leather  business  is  more  than  the  other  consumption 
all  together,  and  more  important. 

What  I  wanted  to  point  out  was  that  under  this  tariff,  which  is 
practically  the  same  as  the  one  to-day,  there  is  an  English  firm  sul- 
phonating fish  oil,  cod  oil,  and  Japanese  seal  oil,  which  pays  no  duty 
in  England,  sulphonating  it,  mixing  it  with  mineral  oil  and  some 
other  cheap  oils,  shipping  it  to  the  United  States  and  selling  it  as  a 
"soluble  grease  fit  only  for  leather  dressing." 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  is  the  name  of  that  firm  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  The  name  is  Livingston,  but  it  is  not  going  to  be 
confined  to  Livingston.  As  soon  as  you  say  I  can  do  it,  I  will  be 
there.  And  I  only  want  to  point  out  here  that,  for  the  sake  of 


230  TABIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  35— INDIGO. 

clearness,  you  use  the  term,  "  sulphonated  oils."  It  is  not  too  long. 
It  is  not  indefinite;  it  is  a  perfectly  definite  term.  If  you  will  simply 
say  that  sulphonated  oil  should  pay  this  duty,  that  will  give  rise  to 
no  uncertainty,  because  it  stops  here  with  the  word  "finishing." 

I  was  in  the  trial  myself  before  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers  in 
New  York  when  this  man  argued  his  case  there,  and  all  he  claimed 
was  it  was  not  suitable  for  dyeing  and  finishing.  Consequently  they 
said  that  is  not  covered  by  this  paragraph,  and  they  let  it  in  free  of 
duty  as  a  grease. 

If  you  would  make  these  two  paragraphs  plain,  it  does  not  amount 
to  very  much.  They  ought  to  be  plain.  Being  an  importer  I  am 
running  up  against  it  all  the  time  with  the  customhouse,  and  I  would 
like  to  see  these  things  cleared  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  we  come  to  write  the  bill,  we  will  give 
careful  consideration  to  what  you  say. 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  How  long  have  you  been  an  importer? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  About  25  years. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  there  an  organization  of  importers.in  New  York 
City? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  How  long  has  it  been  in  existence  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  That  I  do  not  know  about.  I  believe  I  belong 
to  it  myself,  but  I  have  never  attended  any  of  its  meetings. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  it  not  organized  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
the  interests  of  importers? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  That  is  what  it  is  for,  for  protecting  the  importers. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  You  do  not  know  the  objects  of  it  other  than  that  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  Its  object  is  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  im- 
porters. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  And  bring  in  as  much  foreign  goods  as  possible  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  That  is  not  it  at  all.  The  importers  ever  since  I 
have  been  coming  down  hero,  and  I  have  been  before  every  tariff 
committee  since  the  days  of  McKinlcy — we  have  always  been  defend- 
ing ourselves  against  manufacturers  that  had  to  be  protected. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Who  is  the  president  of  the  association  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  I  do  not  know  that. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Has  it  a  board  of  directors  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  I  suppose  so.  As  I  tell  you,  I  have  never  at- 
tended a  meeting  of  it. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Can  you  give  us  that  information  ? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  I  can  get  it  for  you  if  you  want  it. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  I  would  like  to  have  that  in  the  record,  the  name  of 
the  president,  the  other  officers,  its  objects,  and  if  it  has  a  constitution 
and  by-laws  I  would  like  to  have  that  set  out  in  full. 

Mr.  KLIPSTEIN.  The  importers  have  had  the  whole  force  of  the 
Government  against  them,  just  as  it  lias  been  in  favor  of  manufac- 
turers, but  still  we  have  managed  to  exist. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Will  you  kindly  get  that  information  for  us? 

Mr.  KLIPSTEJN.  Yes,  sir. 


SCHEDULE   A.  231 

PARAGRAPH  25     INDIGO. 

ALIZARIN  AND  DYES  DERIVED  PROM  ALIZARIN  OR  ANTHRACENE. 
INDIGO— INDIGO  PASTES. 

From  time  immemorial  the  two  "fastest"  and  best  natural  dyes  were  madder  and 
indigo.  The  colors  produced  by  these  dyes  were  alike  fast  to  washing  and  to  light, 
and  wherever  the  human  race  exists  they  have  been  preferred  on  that  account  to  all 
other  colors.  For  this  reason  when  the  development  of  the  coal-tar  dye  industry 
began,  the  first  problems  attacked  by  the  chemists  were  the  synthetic  production  of 
madder  and  indigo.  The  first  was  solved  nearly  40  years  ago  by  the  production  of 
alizarin  from  anthracene,  with  the  result  of  destroying  the  madder-raising  industry 
of  Europe.  The  second  problem  has  only  been  solved  within  the  past  10  years  by 
the  production  of  synthetic  indigo  from  anilin  or  naphthalene.  The  result  has  been 
the  utter  extinction  of  the  indigo-planting  industry.  In  House  bill  20182,  passed 
by  the  House  in  1912,  paragraph  6  reads  as  follows:  "Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial, 
and  dyes  derived  from  alizarin  or  from  anthracene,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

The  imports  and  values  of  these  dyes  were  stated  as  follows:  1905,  4,076,573  pounds, 
value  $625,076;  1910,  3,605,854  pounds,  value  $647,948;  1911,  3,188,037  pounds, 
value  $709,909. 

It  follows,  from  these  figures,  that  while  the  quantity  of  these  dyestuffs  decreased 
25  per  cent  the  value  increased  13  per  cent.  These  figures  show  that  either  the  value 
or  the  character  of  the  dyes  grouped  under  this  head  had  undergone  a  change,  and  the 
figures  correspond  with  the  commercial  facts.  Since  1905  the  consumption  of  aliza- 
rine dyes,  properly  so  called,  has  decreased;  but  an  entirely  new  class  01  dyes,  known 
as  "fast  vat  dyes,"  of  which  indanthrene  blue  is  a  type,  have  come  into  use.  These 
dyes  are  admitted  free  of  duty,  because  they  are  derived  from  anthracene,  and 
because  they  are  new  and  patented  dyes,  the  price  is  very  much  higher  than  the  old 
alizarine  dyes  properly  so  called.  That  is  why  the  value  has  increased  while  the 
quantity  has  declined. 

These  new  dyes  are  patented  and  chiefly  sold  by  one  German  firm.  They  are  termed 
"fast  vat  dyes"  because  they  are  very  fast,  like  indigo,  and  are  dyed  in  a  vat  like 
indigo,  being  in  both  these  points  different  from  all  former  dyestuffs.  In  the  last 
few  years  this  class  of  dyes  has  increased  rapidly  owing  to  the  demand  for  "fastness" 
to  light,  washing,  etc.  In  consequence,  the  whole  invention  ability  of  all  the  dye 
manufacturers  in  Europe  has  been  devoted  to  their  production.  As  a  result  there 
are  to-day  on  the  market  many  "fast  vat  dyes."  Some  of  them  are  produced  from 
anthracene,  some  from  indigo  or  isatin.  But  in  spite  of  their  similarity  in  the  prop- 
erty of  fastness  and  of  their  mode  of  application  by  "vat"  dyeing,  only  those  derived 
from  alizarine  or  anthracene  are  admitted  duty  free,  while  all  the  rest  must  pay  30 
per  cent  duty.  The  House  bill,  20182,  proposes  10  per  cent  duty  on  dyes  derived  from 
alizarine.  Whether  such  dyes  pay  10  per  cent  or  are  made  free  of  duty,  the  chief 
producer  of  them  is  one  German  company,  who  thus  obtains  an  advantage  over  all 
other  dye  manufacturers  who  make  their  "fast  vat  dyes"  from  other  products,  such 
as  indigo  or  isatin. 

All  these  dyes  are  coal-tar  products  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  why  they 
should  not  be  classed  with  all  other  coal-tar  dyes  and  be  made  to  pay  the  same  duty .  But 
this  paragraph  is  one  of  the  curiosities  of  Amrican  tariff  legislation,  because  it  demon- 
strates that  for  the  past  30  years  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  been  uncon- 
sciously passing  tariff  bills  in  the  special  interest  of  German  manufacturers.  The 
first  appearance  of  the  word  alizarine  was  in  the  tariff  act  of  1883,  in  which  the  free  list 
contained  the  paragraph  ' '  Alizarine,  natural  or  artificial . "  At  that  time  the  Badische 
Aniline  and  Soda  Fabrik  claimed  to  have  a  United  States  patent  for  the  production 
of  alizarine  from  anthracene,  and  sold  a  20  per  cent  alizarine  in  the  United  States 
at  $1  to  $1.25  a  pound.  A  few  years  later  this  patent  was  declared  invalid  by  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  other  manufacturers  were  allowed  to  sell  in  this  coun- 
try, and  in  consequence  the  price  of  alizarine  dropped  to  11  cents  per  pound,  thus 
proving  conclusively  that  the  cost  of  a  dyestuff  is  more  dependent  upon  competition 
than  upon  the  tariff. 

The  next  appearance  of  the  word  alizarine  was  in  paragraph  478  of  the  act  of  October 
1,  1890 — the  McKinley  bill — which  read  as  follows:  "Alizarine,  natural  or  artificial, 
and  dyes  commercially  known  as  alizarine  yellow,  alizarine  orange,  alizarine  green, 
alizarine  blue,  alizarine  brown,  alizarine  black."  All  of  these  dyes  were  special 
products  of  the  same  German  company  and  not  one  of  them  was  made  from  alizarine. 

In  the  Wilson  Tariff  Act  passed  August  27,  1894,  the  matter  was  made  more  general 
and  therefore  worse.  Paragraph  368  of  the  free  list  of  that  act  read:  "Alizarine  and 


OJ2  TAEIFP  HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  25— INDIGO. 

alizarine  colors  or  dyes,  natural  or  artificial."  But  this  act,  at  least,  put  all  manu- 
facturers of  dyes  on  the  same  level.  It  was,  however,  indefinite  and  lead  the  foreign 
manufacturers  to  call  every  new  dye  invented  an  alizarine  dye,  and  this  indefiniteness 
was  sought  to  be  remedied  in  the  Dingley  tariff  of  July  24,  1897,  where  paragraph  469 
of  the  free  list  reads:  "Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial,  and  dyes  derived  from  alizarin 
or  from  anthracin." 

It  will  be  plain  from  the  foregoing  that  for  the  past  30  years  a  few  German  manu- 
facturers have  been  able  to  dictate  an  important  paragraph  of  the  United  States  tariff 
and  to-day  enjoy  privileges  not  granted  to  other  manufacturers  of  the  same  class  of 
dyes.  During  the  years  that  have  passed  since  the  tariff  act  of  1883  the  manufacture 
of  alizarin  and  on  the  dyes  most  directly  derived  from  it  has  been  monopolized 
by  about  three  German  firms  and  has  become  the  most  profitable  branch  of  the  dye 
business,  because  in  consequence  of  this  monopoly  the  price  of  alizarin  20  per  cent 
has  been  advanced  from  11  cents  to  15£  cents  per  pound.  This  advance  of  40  per  cent 
in  price  is  33  per  cent  more  than  the  30  per  cent  duty  on  other  coal-tar  dyes,  and 
proves  that  the  solicitude  of  the  German  dye  makers  for  lower  duties  is  not  because 
they  want  the  American  consumer  to  have  the  benefit  of  low  prices  but  because  it 
will  enable  them  to  get  higher  prices  and  make  larger  profits. 

Since  the  tariff  act  of  1883  it  has  been  the  policy  of  Congress  to  put  not  only  alizarin 
but  indigo  on  the  free  list  for  the  benefit  or  the  textile  industries,  "When  synthetic 
indigo  replaced  the  natural  product,  this  policy  was  continued.  The  existing  tariff 
places  indigo  in  paragraph  692  of  the  free  list.  In  other  words,  indigo  and  alizarin 
have  been  treated  alike  and  kept  in  the  free  list  since  1883.  On  the  other  hand,  dyes 
derived  from  alizarin  or  anthracene  have  been  made  free  while  dyes  derived  from 
indigo  or  isatin  have  been  made  dutiable,  although  they  belong  to  the  same  class, 
both  as  to  fastness  and  method  of  application.  This  should  not  be.  All  the  new 
dyes  derived  from  indigo  or  isatin  are  even  faster  than  indigo  itself,  and  they  are 
dyed  in  a  vat  exactly  the  same  as  indigo.  This  is  also  true  of  the  new  dyes  derived 
from  alizarin,  which  are  dyed  not  like  alizarin,  but  like  indigo.  The  new  tariff 
should  treat  both  these  classes  of  fast  dyes  alike.  If  alizarin  and  dyes  derived  from 
anthracene  and  alizarin  are  free  or  taxed  10  per  cent,  or  20  per  cent,  then  indigo  and 
dyes  derived  from  indigo  or  isatin  should  be  treated  exactly  the  same.  To  make  one 
class  free  and  tax  the  other  or  to  impose  one  rate  on  one  class  and  another  rate  on  the 
other  would  be  to  discriminate  unjustly  in  favor  of  special  manufacturers,  to  the  great 
inconvenience  of  the  consumer,  who  must  often  use  both  classes  at  the  same  time 
to  get  his  results.  Since  the  manufacture  of  synthetic  indigo  and  dyes  derived  from 
indigo  and  isatin  was  commenced  the  price  of  100  per  cent  indigo  has  declined  from 
the  parity  of  $2  per  pound  to  75  cents  per  pound,  thus  permitting  its  greatly  increased 
use  and  rendering  it  and  its  derivatives  more  important  as  dyestuffs  than  formerly,  or 
even  than  alizarin.  I  am  not  arguing  to  have  these  two  classes  of  dyes  put  in  the 
free  list,  but  if  the  necessity  for  revenue  makes  a  tax  advisable,  both  justice  and  com- 
mon sense  require  that  the  tax  be  the  same  on  both. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

E.  0.  KLTPSTEIN. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6,  1913. 


INDIGO   STATISTICS. 

The  imports  of  indigo  can  not  be  compared  by  quantity  becanse  some  of  it  contains 
20  per  cent,  some  50  per  cent,  and  some  100  per  cent.  The  total  value  of  indigo 
imported  in  1900  was  $1,446,490.  The  total  value  from  Germany  $319,329  (21.3  per 
cent),  $1,127,161  (78.7  per  cent).  The  total  value  imported  in  1911  was  $1,152,518. 
The  total  value  from  Germany  $987,082  (85.6  per  cent),  $165,436  (14.4  per  cent). 

The  imports  from  Germany  represent  synthetic  indigo  and  consequently  the  amount 
of  synthetic  indigo  used  as  compared  with  the  total  consumption  has  gone  up  from 

.3  per  rent  in  J900  to  85.6  per  cent  in  1911.  Last  year  the  manufacture  of  synthetic 
indigo  was  commended  in  Switzerland  and  the  German  convention  at  once  dropped 
the  price  from  16-^  cents  net  per  pound  for  20  per  cent  paste  to  15  cents  net,  a  fan  of 
about  9  per  cnnt. 

Based  on  the  imports  for  the  year  1911,  viz,  indigo  to  the  value  of  $1,152,518  and 
alizarin-anthracene  dyes  $650,000,  a  10  percent  duty  on  those  two  products  would 
produce  a  revenue  of  $180,251  yearly. 


SCHEDULE  A.  233 

PARAGRAPH  25— INDIGO. 

ALIZARIN   ASSISTANT — CASTOR  OIL. 

Hon.  0.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee: 

House  bill  20182  in  paragraph  50  makes  the  duty  on  castor  oil  20  cents  per  gallon  and 
on  the  sulphonated  oil  made  from  it,  known  as  alizarin  assistant,  15  per  cent  ad  valo- 
rem. These  are  practically  the  rates  of  the  Wilson  bill,  which  made  the  duty  on 
castor  oil  35  cents  per  gallon  and  on  alizarin  assistant  30  per  cent.  The  Wilson  bill 
seriously  injured  the  manufacturers  of  assistant  and  it  is  certain  the  rates  now  pro- 
posed would  do  the  same,  because  the  duty  on  the  finished  product  is  relatively  lesa 
than  on  the  raw  material,  castor  oil.  In  this  case  three  rates  of  duty  must  be  con- 
sidered: First,  the  duty  on  castor  beans;  second,  the  duty  on  castor  oil;  third,  the 
duty  on  alizarin  assistant. 

The  McKinley  tariff  in  1890  imposed  the  following  rates:  Castor  beans,  50  cents 
per  bushel;  castor  oil,  80  cents  per  gallon;  alizarin  assistant  (containing  50  per  cent 
of  castor  oil),  80  cents  per  gallon,  less  than  50  per  cent,  40  cents  per  gallon;  all  other, 
30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  Wilson  bill  in  1894  reduced  the  duty  on  castor  beans  to  25  cents  per  bushel,  on 
castor  oil  to  35  cents  per  gallon,  and  on  alizarin  assistant  to  30  per  cent. 

The  Dingley  Act  of  1897  and  the  Payne  bill  both  retained  the  low  rates  of  the 
Wilson  bill  on  castor  beans  (25  cents  per  bushel)  and  on  castor  oil  (35  cents  per  gal- 
lon), but  made  the  rates  on  alizarin  assistant  to  correspond,  viz,  30  cents  per  gallon 
when  it  contained  over  50  per  cent  of  castor  oil,  15  cents  per  gallon  when  it  con- 
tained less  than  50  per  cent  castor  oil,  and  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  when  made  of 
other  than  castor  oil. 

The  makers  of  both  castor  oil  and  alzarin  assistant  have  managed  to  exist  com- 
fortably in  spite  of  the  tremendous  reduction  of  duty  in  the  Dingley  and  Payne 
bills  as  compared  with  the  McKinley  bills,  because  the  duties  on  beans,  oil,  and 
alizarin  assistant  were  justly  proportioned. 

In  view  of  this  fact  both  the  makers  of  castor  oil  and  of  alizarin  assistant  would 
be  perfectly  satisfied  with  a  reduction  of  duty  on  their  products  if  you  will  make 
a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  duty  on  castor  beans;  and  in  that  case  you  could 
not  do  better  than  to  follow  the  relative  rates  of  the  present  tariff  and  make  the 
duties  about  as  follows:  Castor  beans,  12£  cents  per  bushel;  castor  oil,  20  cents  per 
gallon;  alizarin  assistant,  containing  50  per  cent  and  over  of  castor  oil,  17  cents  per 
gallon,  containing  less  than  50  per  cent  castor  oil,  10  cents  per  gallon.  If  made  from 
any  other  oil  than  castor  oil,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  consumption  of  sulphonated  oils  has  increased  very  much  in  the  past  few 
years,  and  a  great  many  other  oils  are  being  so  treated  besides  the  castor  oil.  This  is 
notably  true  of  fish  oils,  cod  oils,  etc.,  which  when  so  treated  are  largely  used  by  the 
leather  industry.  It  is  important,  therefore,  to  specify  clearly  that  all  sulphonated 
oils  must  pay  a  duty — say,  20  per  cent — as  otherwise  foreign  manufacturers  can 
evade  the  duty  on  oils  by  sulphonating  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  at  the  present 
time  an  English  manufacturer  is  sulphonating  fish  oil  and  shipping  it  in  large  quan- 
tities to  this  country  free  of  duty  as  a  "soluble  grease  fit  only  for  leather  dressing." 
This  is  a  fraud  on  the  revenue  and  should  be  rendered  impossible  in  the  new  tariff. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

E.  C.  KLIPSTEIN. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6,  1913. 

PARAGRAPH  26. 

Ink  and  ink  powders,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  27. 

Iodine,  resublimed,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 
See  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  49. 

PARAGRAPH  28. 

lodoform,  seventy-five  cents  per  pound. 
See  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  49. 

PARAGRAPH  29. 

Licorice,  extracts  of,  in  paste,  rolls,  or  other  forms,  two  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound. 
For  licorice  root,  etc.,  see  also  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  103. 

PARAGRAPH  30. 

Chicle,  ten  cents  per  pound. 


234  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  30— CHICLE. 

CHICLE. 

BEIEF    OF    THE    ISAAC    KUBIE    CO.,  NEW    YORK,  IT.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  February  3,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  0. 

SIR:  We  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the  rate  of  duty  on 
chicle,  which  to-day  is  10  cents  a  pound,  and  there  is  no  other  con- 
dition included  in  the  paragraph  which  we  believe  is  not  just,  for  the 
following  reasons : 

The  American  Chicle  Co.,  Wm.  Wrigley,  jr.,  Co.,  the  Sen-Sen  Co. 
(Ltd.),  etc.,  otherwise  known  as  the  trust,  forward  practically  all  the 
gum  they  receive  in  transit  to  Canada,  where  it  is  ground,  cleaned 
and  all  tne  moisture  and  foreign  matter  taken  out,  and  is  then  reim- 
ported  into  the  United  States.  This  process,  however,  reduces  the 
weight  about  30  per  cent,  and  naturally  the  Government  loses  the 
duty  on  said  shrinkage,  besides  which  the  labor  which  would  other- 
wise be  performed  by  the  residents  of  this  country,  and  the  greater 
number  of  people  which  would  be  employed. 

We  do  not  know  the  exact  number  of  smaller  manufacturers  of  chicle 
chewing  gum,  but  there  are  from  150  to  200  scattered  all  over  this 
country  that  have  not  sufficient  capital  to  enable  them  to  do  the  same 
as  the  trust  is  doing,  and  therefore  they  are  at  a  disadvantage  and 
find  it  extremely  difficult  to  compete  with  the  trust. 

We  would  suggest,  therefore,  that  in  revising  the  tariff,  paragraph 
30,  Schedule  A,  it  read  as  follows: 

Chicle:  Crude,  in  solid  or  liquid  form,  10  cents  per  pound.  Refined,  cleaned, 
dried  chicle,  advanced  in  manufacture  or  in  anywise  prepared  for  making  chewing 
gum,  or  similar  purposes,  25  cents  per  pound;  chewing  gum  prepared  for  sale  without 
any  further  manufacture,  50  cents  per  pound. 

It  is  possible  that  the  trust  will  be  manufacturing  the  chicle  in 
foreign  countries  and  import  it  into  this  country  unless  some  such 
step  as  we  suggest  herein  is  taken,  and  while  the  gist  of  our  meaning 
is  expressed  above,  \ve  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  your  chang- 
ing the  wording  in  such  manner  as  to  make  the  distinction  between 
the  various  classes  of  chicle  clearer,  and  the  rate  of  duty  on  each 
respective  class  well  defined  and  without  liability  of  misinterpretation. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

ISAAC  KUBIE  Co., 
ISAAC  KUBIE,  President. 

BEIEF  OF  AMERICAN  CHICLE  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  3,  1913. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

JIouKt  of  Representatives,   Washington.  D.  C. 

SIRS:  We  und"istand  .hat  section  37  of  bill  20182,  which  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  February  20,  1912,  will  be  included  in 
the  tariff  bill  your  committee  now  has  under  consideration.  As  large 
gatherers,  importers,  and  users  of  the  article  known  as  gum  chicle,  we 
respectfully  request  your  attention  to  the  following  statement: 


SCHEDULE   A.  235 

PARAGRAPH  30— CHICLE. 

First.  Gum  chicle  is  the  sap  of  the  sapote  tree  and  is  found  only  in 
Mexico,  Guatemala,  and  British  Honduras,  and  is  used  in  the  United 
States  solely  in  the  manufacture  of  high-class  chewing  gums. 

Second.  The  gathering  of  gum  chicle  is  attended  by  many  diffi- 
culties and  risks.  The  crop  of  chicle  is  determined  by  the  rainfall. 
A  drought  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  affects  the  output  to  a  large 
extent,  and  may  involve  the  gathers  in  heavy  financial  loss.  If  the 
rainfall  be  abnormally  heavy,  the  roads  become  impassable  for 
months,  thereby  increasing  me  cost  of  transportation.  An  added 
trouble  will  be  seen  in  the  disturbed  political  conditions  of  Mexico. 

Third.  Gum  chicle  contains  a  large  percentage  of  water,  much  of 
which  must  be  extracted  before  it  can  be  incorporated  with  the  other 
ingredients  hi  the  manufacture  of  chewing  gum.  During  the  past 
12  years  29  per  cent  of  water  has  been  extracted  from  gum  chicle 
used  by  us. 

Fourth.  The  present  import  duty  on  gum  chicle  is  10  cents  per 
pound.  The  average  invoiced  price  is  32  cents  per  pound,  making 
a  duty  of  over  31  per  cent,  but  on  the  gum  chicle  actually  usable  and 
used,  the  duty  amounts  to  44  per  cent. 

Fifth.  Your  committee  will  readily  see  that  in  the  event  of  section 
37  of  bill  No.  20182  becoming  law,  the  duty  on  chicle  actually  used 
will  be  88  per  cent. 

Sixth.  We  contend  that  gum  chicle  is  a  raw  material  and  as  such 
should  be  admitted  into  the  country  duty  free. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

AMERICAN  CHICLE  Co., 
H.  ROWLEY, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  OF  WM.  WRIGLEY,  JR.,  CO.,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

CHICAGO,  January  4,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives ,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Referring  to  bill  H.  R.  20182,  which  passed  the  House 
February  20,  1912,  and  which  we  understand  will  oe  the  basis  of  a 
new  tariff  bill  to  be  introduced,  we  desire  to  protest  against  an  item 
in  section  37,  raising  the  duty  on  chicle  from  10  to  20  cents  per  pound, 
for  the  following  reasons : 

First.  There  is  not  a  pound  of  gum  chicle,  so  far  as  we  know,  raised 
in  the  United  States,  and  we  have  to  depend  entirely  on  Mexico, 
British  Honduras,  Guatemala,  and  other  tropical  countries  for  our 
supply.  In  order  to  obtain  a  large  supply  of  gum  chicle  it  is  now 
necessary  for  us  to  advance  the  cost  of  hiring  native  help,  buying 
mules,  implements,  etc.,  for  sending  them  into  the  woods  to  tap  the 
trees,  and  this  advance  is  often  made  months  before  we  use  the 
chicle.  There  is  more  or  less  loss  by  contractors  to  whom  the  money 
is  advanced  failing  to  produce  the  chicle.  There  have  also  been 
advances  in  the  duties  to  the  Governments  in  the  different  countries. 
All  of  this  tends  to  raise  the  price  of  chicle,  and  inasmuch  as  we  are 
paying  an  extremely  liberal  duty  on  this  article  (10  cents  per  pound), 
we  believe  it  would  be  unjust  to  raise  this  duty. 


236  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

Second.  The  chewing-gum  business  is  very  difficult  to  successfully 
conduct.  This  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  many  thousands  who  have 
gone  into  this  business  have  failed,  and  we  believe  the  smaller  chew- 
ing-gum manufacturers  who  are  struggling  to  make  enough  to  pay 
their  help  and  a  small  profit  can  only  continue  by  raising  their  prices. 

Third.  Thousands  of  people  are  employed  in  the  manufacture  of 
chewing  gum,  and  there  are  many  more  thousands  employed  in  sell- 
ing same.  There  is  a  large  class  of  people  selling  chewing  gum  on 
the  streets  in  a  retail  way  that  are  not  able  to  do  anything  else,  and 
perhaps  supporting  families  by  so  doing,  who  would  otherwise  become 
a  burden  to  the  community.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  stores  add 
a  little  to  their  profit  by  selling  chewing  gum,  and  inasmuch  as  raw 
material,  labor,  etc.,  have  been  steadily  advancing,  this  bill,  if  it 
becomes  a  law,  will  add  an  additional  burden,  which  can  only  be 
borne  by  raising  the  price  of  chewing  gum. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  the  above  letter  may  receive  your  careful 
consideration,  and  that  only  a  just  and  equitable  duty  be  placed  on 
gum  chicle. 

Very  truly,  yours,  WM.  WRIGLEY  JR.  Co., 

A.  G.  Cox,  Vice  President. 

PAEAGRAPH  31. 

Magnesia  and  carbonate  of,  medicinal,  three  cents  per  pound;  calcined, 
medicinal,  seven  cents  per  pound ;  sulphate  of,  or  Epsom  salts,  one-fifth  of  one 
cent  per  pound. 

For  calcined  medicinal  magnesia,  see  also  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.; 
page  49;  for  Epson  salts,  see  also  W.  H.  Nichols,  jr.  page  37,  and  General  Chemical 
Co.,  page  39. 

EPSOM  SALTS. 

STATEMENT    OF    S.  G.    BOYKIN,    REPRESENTING    THE    N.    P. 
PRATT  LABORATORY,  ATLANTA,  GA. 

Mr.  S.  G.  BOYKIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 
committee- 
Mr.  LONGWORTH  (interrupting).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
suggest  that  each  witness,  if  he  can,  state  what  paragraph  he  intends 
to  speak  on,  and  what  his  interest  in  it  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  we  will  be  glad  to  have  you  state  what  para- 
graph you  intend  to  talk  about. 

Mr.  BOYKIN.  Paragraph  31,  Schedule  A. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  of  what  commodity  are  you  a  manufacturer? 

Mr.  BOYKIN.  Epsom  salts.  I  am  vice  president  of  the  N.  P. 
Pratt  Laboratory  of  Atlanta.  I  filed  my  brief  with  the  clerk,  and 
I  just  want  to  say  that  Epsom  salts  produced  in  the  United  States 
is  simply  a  manufactured  article,  while  the  majority  of  Epsom  is 
dug  out  of  the  ground  and  made  from  kaiserite.  Therefore,  we  are 
unable  to  compete  with  those  people,  as  ours  is  a  purely  manu- 
factured article.  Epsom  salts  can  be  imported  into  the  United 
States  with  the  duty  around  65  cents. 

Now,  to  reduce  the  duty  on  Epsom  will  not  benefit  the  consumer. 
Why,  you  can  buy  for  5  cents  all  you  can  carry  now  and  in  10-cent 
quantities  you  would  have  to  get  a  cart  to  carry  it  away  with  you,  so 
the  consumer  will  not  be  benefited;  it  will  be~the  foreign  manufac- 


SCHEDULE   A.  237 

PARAGBAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

turer.  This  kaiserite  is  controlled  by  the  general  pdtash  syndicate, 
and  it  will  simply  put  us  out  of  business  if  this  duty  is  taken  off. 
We  are  selling  it  now  as  cheaply  as  we  can  make  it,  and  it  will  simply 
be  a  benefit  to  German  manufacturers  rather  than  to  the  consumer. 
We  get  for  Epsom  around  85  cents  or  90  cents  a  hundred  pounds  at 
the  factory,  and  it  is  sold  to  the  consumer  by  the  retail  drug  trade — 
we  sell  to  the  wholesalers — at  anywhere  from  10  to  40  cents  a  pound, 
so  if  the  imported  article  comes  in  to  a  greater  extent  it  will  be  the 
same  thing.  It  will  simply  put  us  out  of  business.  We  can  not  com- 
pete with  a  20-cent  reduction  or  a  10-cent  reduction  on  Epsom  salts. 
We  would  simply  have  to  abandon  it.  Now,  in  the  past  three  years 
two  Epsom  factories  have  gone  out  of  business  on  account  of  the  low 
price  of  salts,  and  I  certainly  hope  you  gentlemen  will  see  that  the 
sarn^  duty  remains  on  Epsom.  I  thank  you  for  your  attention,  sirs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  sir. 

Mr.  Boykin  presented  the  following  brief  of  the  N.  P.  Pratt  Lab- 
oratory, Atlanta,  Ga.,  manufacturers  of  Epsom  salts,  protesting 
against  a  reduction  of  duty  on  Epsom  salts : 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 
GENTLEMEN:  The  tariff  act  of  1909,  page  4,  line  34,  reads: 
"Sulphate  of  magnesia  or  Epsom  salts,  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound." 
The  proposed  Underwood  bill  now  reads,  on  page  11,  line  22: 
"Sulphate  of  magnesia  or  Epsom  salts,  one-tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound." 
We  respectfully  ask  your  honorable  body  to  recommend  to  Congress  the  retention  of 
the  present  rate  of  duty  and  not  to  make  the  reduction  fixed  in  the  proposed  Under- 
wood bill  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  Epsom  salts  produced  in  the  United  States  is  strictly  a  manufactured  product, 
raw  materials  required  being  sulphuric  acid  and  carbonate  of  magnesia,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  cost  of  manufacturing  is  much  greater  than  that  of  the  German  article 
which  is  mined  in  the  crude  state  and  only  needs  slight  purification. 

2.  The  proposed  reduction  in  duty  will  not  benefit  the  American  consumer  but  the 
beneficiary  will  be  a  foreign  monopoly. 

On  these  two  points  we  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

EPSOM  SALTS  PRODUCED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  IS  STRICTLY  A  MANUFACTURED  PRODUCT. 

Considering  the  high  price  of  raw  materials,  no  American  manufacturer  could 
manufacture  Epsom  salts  solely.  It  is  therefore,  manufactured  in  connection  with 
carbonic-acid  gas  from  magnesite  and  sulphuric  acid. 

Grecian  magnesite  is  an  imported  article,  upon  which  we  pay  a  freight  of  $5.20  per 
ton  from  New  York  to  our  plant,  in  addition  to  the  price  per  ton  to  New  York,  which 
varies  from  $7  to  $8.  While  there  is  no  duty  on  magnesite,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
transportation  charges  are  very  high. 

To  show  the  cost  of  manufacturing  Epsom  salts  and  the  low  prices  received  for  same, 
in  the  past  three  years  two  carbonic  acid  plants  have  discontinued  the  manufacture 
of  Epsom  salts,  due  to  the  fact  of  the  low  selling  price  and  the  high  cost  of  materials, 
even  in  the  face  of  the  present  duty. 

THE    PROPOSED    REDUCTION    IN    DUTY    WILL    NOT    BENEFIT   THE    AMERICAN    CONSUMER, 
BUT   THE   BENEFICIARY   WILL   BE   A   FOREIGN   MONOPOLY. 

To  reduce  the  tariff  from  its  present  basis  it  will  mean  a  reduction  in  the  selling  price 
of  the  American  producer,  and,  considering  the  extremely  high  cost  of  producing 
Epsom  salts  now,  it  would  mean  the  discontinuance  of  the  manufacture  of  Epsom  salts, 
thereby  leaving  the  field  in  the  United  States  entirely  to  a  foreign  monopoly. 

A  reduction  of  10  cents  per  100  pounds  in  the  wholesale  price  of  Epsom  salts  will 
never  be  felt  by  the  consumer,  who  pays  from  15  cents  to  40  cents  per  pound. 


238  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SAI/TS. 

CONCLUSION. 

As  manufacturers  of  carbon  dioxide,  the  process  which  we  are  now  using  will  not  be 
the  most  economical  if  the  duty  on  Epsom  salts  is  reduced.  We  have  already  been 
seriously  considering  the  abandonment  of  same  and  substituting  the  method  of  manu- 
facture from  the  combustion  of  coke,  and  any  curtailment  of  our  present  profits  by  rea- 
son of  a  reduction  in  the  duty  will  certainly  force  us  to  take  this  step.  Should  we  aban- 
don the  manufacture  of  Epsom  salts  the  whole  southern  territory  will  be  surrendered 
to  the  foreign  monopoly,  for  the  reason  that  the  ocean  freights  even  now  to  western 
points  are  much  lower  than  our  railroad  rates  to  the  same  places,  and  any  manufacturers 
remaining  in  the  East  will  not  be  able  to  supply  this  territory  in  competition  to  the 

N.  P.  PRATT  LABORATORY, 
By  S.  G.  BOYKIN, 

Vice  President  and  Treasurer. 

STATEMENT    OF  J.    G.    SHOLES,    ESQ.,    REPRESENTING    THE 
OHIO  CHEMICAL  &  MANUFACTURING  CO. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  Ohio 
Chemical  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  of  Cleveland.  We  are  intensely  inter- 
ested in  Epsom  salts,  or  sulphate  of  magnesia. 

The  present  tariff  is  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  while  the  proposed 
tariff  is  one-tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound.  We  believe  that  the  present 
tariff  is  the  best  revenue  getter,  and  is  truly  a  competitive  tariff.  Dur- 
ing 1907  there  were  imported  4,1 13,000  pounds  of  Epsom  salts,  and  four 
years  later  the  importations  were  8,000,000  pounds,  almost  double, 
showing  the  rapid  increase.  The  domestic  production  during  1912, 
as  near  as  we  can  figure  it,  was  16,000,000  pounds.  Consequently 
one-third  is  imported,  while  two-thirds  is  produced. 

If  the  new  traiff  goes  into  effect  it  will  be  necessary  to  import  double 
the  quantity  to  obtain  the  same  revenue.  Of  course,  reducing  the 
domestic  production  to  one-third  will  practically  stop  domestic  manu- 
facture. The  imports  come  from  the  German  Potasn  Syndicate,  who 
obtain  Epsom  salts  as  a  by-product.  They  now  ship  it  into  this 
country  at  a  very  low  price,  from  about  37  to  39  cents,  and  the  duty, 
dockage,  insurance,  etc.,  brings  it  up  to  61  or  67  cents.  Those  at  a 
distance  from  the  coast  are  able  to  manufacture  and  seh1  it  at  a  very 
small  profit;  but  if  the  duty  is  reduced  of  course  the  importations 
will  take  its  place. 

Epsom  salts  is  manufactured  from  Grecian  magnesite  and  sulphuric 
acid.  Consequently  the  sulphuric-acid  industry  is  to  an  extent  inter- 
ested in  the  production  of  the  Epsom  salts;  it  assists  in  the  production 
of  it. 

During  one-half  of  the  year  we  use  crude  Grecian  magnesite,  which 
comes  into  the  country  free,  and  during  the  other  half  of  the  year  we 
use  calcined  magnesite,  which  in  the  past  has  come  in  free,  but  the 
present  schedule,  I  believe,  proposes  to  put  a  tariff  of  $1  a  ton  on  that. 
Consequently  we  are  hit  both  going  and  coming. 

The  amount  of  calcined  magnesite  imported  during  the  fiscal  year 
1912  was  204,997,000  pounds,  and  the  revenue  from  that  would  be 
8102,000.  Our  consumption  of  calcined  magnesite,  although  it 
means  a  great  deal  to  us,  is  only  a  small  part  of  that,  and  we  feel  we 
have  no  right  to  object  to  the  proposed  tariff  for  revenue  purposes 
on  the  calcined  magnesite;  nevertheless  it  makes  it  pretty  nard  for 
us,  and  we  hope  that  the  duty  of  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound  will  be 
retained. 


SCHEDULE    A.  239 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

With  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  we  will  be  able  to  get  our 
crude  magnesite  from  California,  where  there  are  the  largest  deposits 
of  magnesite  in  the  world,  and  it  will  develop  mines  there  which  are 
now  inactive,  I  believe,  on  account  of  the  very  small  production  on 
the  coast. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  I  understand  that  for  half  the  year  you  get 
your  raw  material  crude  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  during  the  other  half  of  the  year  it  is  calcined 
magnesite  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  benefit,  if  any,  would  your  Epsom  salts 
derive  from  our  placing  sulphuric  acid  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  None  at  all. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Why  is  that  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Because  we  could  not  import  sulphuric  acid  from  any 
other  country,  I  do  not  think,  as  cheaply  as  we  could  buy  it  at  our 
door. 

Mr.  HARRISON,  Is  that  on  account  of  tlie  difficulties  of  trans- 
portation or  because  of  the  price  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  On  account  of  the  difficulties  of  transportation,  I 
would  say. 

Mr.  HILL.  This  business,  as  stated  here  in  the  brief,  by  a  reduction 
of  10  cents  a  hundred  pounds,  will  probably  stop  the  manufacture  of 
Epsom  salts  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is,  $2  a  ton  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  It  can  be  very  easily  figured.  It  takes  1  pound  of 
calcined  magnesite  and  3  pounds  of  sulphuric  acid  to  produce  5 
pounds  of  Epsom  salts.  Koughly  the  cost  would  be  2£  cents  at  the 
present  time,  although  actually  slightly  in  excess  of  that.  To  be 
more  accurate,  the  crude  material  only  costs  us  in  Cleveland  56  cents 
a  hundred  pounds.  The  imported  can  be  purchased  at  61  cents 
f .  o.  b.  New  York.  Our  56  cents  is  without  even  a  barrel.  A  barrel 
will  raise  the  price  on  that  10  cents  a  hundred,  making  it  66  cents. 

Mr.  HILL.  There  is  not  much  labor  involved  in  its  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  About  5  cents  a  hundred.  Consequently  our  figures 
of  73  cents,  or  71  cents  during  1911,  is  what  it  costs  us. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  entire  labor  of  manufacturing  would  be  $1  a  ton 
at  5  cents  a  hundred  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  as  much  as  the  entire  labor  involved  in  the 
production  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir;  twice  as  much.  Moreover,  the  price  of  labor 
should  be  added  to  the  cost  of  crude  material. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  price  of  labor  in  this  matter 
at  all? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  the  turning  of  it  over  to  the 
German  Potash  Syndicate,  of  which  the  Government  is  a  part  owner  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  They  do  not  manufacture  Epsom  salts. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 


240  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SAI/TS. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  It  is  a  by-product  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  The  German  Potash  Syndicate  obtains  Epsom  salts 
as  a  by-product,  and  if  they  import  to  such  an  extent  that  do- 
mestic manufacturers  cease  to  manufacture  I  do  not  believe  they 
will  continue  to  sell  it  at  a  low  price.  They  have  not  done  it  in  other 
things.  The  present  price  of  Epsom  salts  in  Germany,  France,  and 
England  to-day  is  equal  to  this  country  or  above  this  country. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  think  they  will  absorb  the  reduction  if  it  is  made  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  They  will  get  the  advantage  of  it,  and  perhaps  the 
domestic  manufacturers  will  go  out  of  business.  Then,'  I  believe, 
when  we  are  unprepared  to  manufacture  and  give  competition,  they 
will  raise  the  price. 

One  thing  more.  I  do  not  think  the  ultimate  consumer  will 
obtain  any  benefit  of  a  reduction  of  one-tenth  of  1  cent,  inasmuch 
as  the  man  who  buys  Epsom  salts  at  a  drug  store  pays  5  or  10  cents 
and  obtains  a  package.  It  goes  into  certain  preparations,  such  as 
mineral  waters,  and  things  like  that,  but  the  price  of  those  will  not 
be  reduced. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  you  think  when  the  Panama  Canal  is  opened 
you  can  get  your  raw  material  much  cheaper? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Not  much  cheaper;  but  it  will  be  a  higher  grade  of 
raw  material,  at  probably  about  the  same  price.  It  will  be  the 
natural  source  for  us  to  obtain  our  supply.  We  have  been  trying 
to  do  so  for  the  past  5  or  10  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  are  now  getting  it  from  Germany,  you  say  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  We  are  now  getting  the  raw  material  from  Greece. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  When  the  Panama  Canal  is  opened  up,  and  you  get 
cheaper  freight  rates  from  California,  you  will  not  need  any  tariff? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Not  on  the  crude  material.  I  do  not  think  the  raw 
material  will  bo  decreased  in  price  when  the  Panama  Canal  opens, 
but  we  will  be  able  to  obtain  a  higher  grade  of  magnesite  in  probably 
a  little  more  convenient  way.  At  present  it  is  very  difficult  to 
obtain  magnesite,  because  we  have  to  order  sometimes  six  months 
in  advance  of  our  requirements. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then  you  will  be  able  to  make  a  better  profit  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No:  not  a  better  profit.  If  crude  magnesite  comes 
from  Greece  and  contains  48  per  cent  of  magnesia,  we  get  48  per  cent 
out  of  it. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then  you  will  be  able  to  make  Epsom  salts  cheaper; 
is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  think  it  will  be  any  cheaper. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  is  the  use  of  using  this  better  stuff  you  are 
going  to  get  from  California  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  It  might  he  fractionally  cheaper.  It  requires  less 
labor  in  a  way,  and  it  probably  would  be  somewhat  cheaper.  It  is 
problematical. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  it  a  cheaper  process  of  manufacture? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No;  it  is  simply  a  hotter  grade. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  say  you  can  not  make  any  better  salts? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No:  because,  we  can  only  get  52  per  cent  of  magnesia 
out  of  rock  from  California.  In  buying  from  Greece  we  get  48  per 
rent,  or  approximately  those  figures.  Those  figures  may  not  be 
exact  but  they  show  the  ratio,  it  depends  upon  what  the  price  will 


SCHEDULE  A.  241 

PARAGBAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

be  and  whether  it  will  be  lower  or  higher,  to  tell  whether  it  will  be 
cheaper  or  not. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  do  not  see  any  use  of  using  the  California  product 
at  all,  then,  if  you  can  not  make  it  better  or  cheaper. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  We  will  be  able  to  get  it  more  regularly  and  more 
quickly,  and  perhaps  a  little  cheaper,  but  we  can  not  tell  what  the 
price  will  be. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  There  is  no  duty  on  .magnesite  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  There  is  no  duty  on  the  raw  magnesite,  but  on  calcined 
magnesite  the  duty  proposed  is  $1  a  ton,  and  that  is  what  we  use 
one-half  of  the  year. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Your  hope  is  that  by  the  completion  of  the  Panama 
Canal  you  can  obtain  it  cheaper  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  We  will  be  able  to  get  the  crude  material  from  Cali- 
fornia, which  we  have  been  trying  to  get  for  a  number  of  years. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  This  article  is  sold  in  the  drug  stores,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  is  sold  in  small  quantities  to  individual  consumers  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Three  or  four  ounces  as  a  usual  thing? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  effect  would  it  have  on  the  price  to  the  ultimate 
consumer  if  we  did  reduce  this  duty  to  one-tenth  of  1  cent  a  pound  ? 
Have  you  figured  it  out  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  The  ultimate  consumer  would  undoubtedly  get  no 
benefit,  but  the  wholesale  druggist  would. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  10  per  cent  would  get  lost  before  it  got  to  him. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  notice  in  your  brief  your  last  statement  is: 

These  facts  are  not  presented  to  you  at  this  time  as  an  argument  for  protection,  but 
to  assist  you  in  demonstrating  the  fact  that  the  greatest  amount  of  revenue  can  be 
received  by  allowing  the  present  duty  to  stand. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  We  believe  it  will  produce  a  more  equitable  revenue 
to  the  Government. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  your  interest  to  give  the  Government  a  larger 
revenue  in  your  particular  industry  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No,  not  entirely.  Each  one  of  us  is  interested  in  what 
we  are  doing,  and  if  we  do  not  continue  in  manufacture,  we  do  not 
believe  the  Government  will  get  as  large  a  revenue  at  one-tenth  of 
1  cent  per  pound  as  they  do  now  at  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  one  case  it  is  protection  and  in  the 
other  case  it  is  not  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  It  is  incidental  protection. 

Mr.  HILL.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  incidental  protection. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  It  would  undoubtedly  reach  this. 

Mr.  HILL.  In  this  case  your  argument  is  for  protection  to  your 
industry  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  suggest  you  use  an  equivalent  word.  One 
gentleman  did  not  like  the  sound  of  protection. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  know  anything  else  that  would— 

Mr.  HILL  (interposing).  You  do  not  like  the  word? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I   want  protection,    but   I   do   not  like    the   word. 
[Laughter.] 

TS9590— VOL  1—13 -16 


242  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  interests  vour  company  most  is  the  increased 
revenue  the  Government  will  get  if  we  increase  this  tax,  or  is  it  the 
increased  profits  you  will  be  able  to  contribute  to  your  stockholders  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  We  want  to  continue  to  manufacture,  and  we  do  not 
believe  the  Government  will  receive  any  benefit  by  our  going  out  of 
manufacture.  By  our  ceasing  to  manufacture  we  believe  the  Gov- 
ernment will  obtain  a  less  revenue  rather  than  a  greater  revenue 
eventually. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  stated  that  this  reduction  in  the  tariff  would  not 
make  the  article  any  cheaper  to  the  consumer.     Then  how  is  your 
company  affected  if  it  would  not  affect  the  price  to  the  consumer  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  The  ultimate  consumer  is  the  man  who  buys  a  small 
amount  at  the  drug  store  at  the  price  of  5  or  10  cents.  It  will  affect 
the  wholesale  druggist. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  not  this  used  for  manufacturing  purposes,  to  some 
extent,  in  the  textiles  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Not  so  much.  It  is  not  used  in  the  textiles  to  amount 
to  anything;  it  is  very  little,  as  I  understand  it.  That  statement  has 
been  made,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  it.  It  is  used  in  the 
tanning  industry. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So,  then  to  take  the  tariff  off  will  not  cheapen  the  article 
and  to  increase  the  tariff  will  not  raise  the  price  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  quite  get  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So  the  tariff  does  not  affect  it  at  all? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Xot  to  the  ultimate  consumer.  We  believe  the  pres- 
ent tariff  of  20  cents  a  hundred  or  one-fifth  of  1  cent  a  pound  is  the 
best  tariff,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  a  competitive  one.  We  have  to 
hustle,  and  we  make  very  little  money  on  it. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Do  you  know  that  the  Government  only  collected 
$7,000  on  Epsom  salts? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  My  figures  for  last  year  show  they  collected  $16,000. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  What  is  the  difference  between  sulphate  of  magnesia 
and  Epsom  salts  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  They  are  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  The  figures  that  the  Treasury  Department  give  show 
that  they  got  §7,000  out  of  it  last  year.  Oil,  yes;  it  is  816,000;  you 
are  right. 

But  if  we  reduce  this  tariff  we  will  bring;  m  more  of  it,  will  we  not? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  You  will  bring  in  more  of  it. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Therefore  we  will  got  more  revenue? 

Mr.  SHOLKS.  You  will  have  to  increase  just  double.  In  other 
words,  you  will  have  to  bring  in  16,000,000  pounds  in  order  to  get  the 
present  revenue  of  816.000.  Epsom  salts  amounts  to  very  little  to 
the  Government.  I  should  think  that  the  calcined  magnesite  would 
be  of  greater  interest. 

Mr.  LOXGWOHTH.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  think  this,  that  generally 
in  the  chemical  industry  it  would  not  only  not  be  to  the  benefit  but 
to  the  damage  of  the  ultimate  consumer  in  this  country  to  drive  any 
American  chemical  works  out  of  business? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  1  do. 

Mr.  I.oNowotrnr.  In  other  word...  do  you  not  think  that  the  Ger- 
man manufacturers,  if  they  were  relieved  of  the  competition  here  of 


SCHEDULE  A.  243 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

American  manufacturers,  instead  of  lowering  the  price  would  raise  it 
eventually  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yea,  sir;  that  is  what  I  have  been  saying. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  So  the  ultimate  consumer  would  be  at  a  disad- 
vantage ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Eventually  wherever  an  American  manufacturer 
is  driven  out  of  business  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  would  depend  upon  whether  or  not  the  American 
manufacturer  were  in  a  monopoly  to  raise  the  prices  on  the  consumer, 
would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  If  the  tariff  is  competitive,  I  do  not  see  how  they  can. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  know;  but  suppose  the  manufacturers  of  certain 
articles  are  in  a  monopoly  and  they  raise  the  price  and  press  the 
people  behind  the  tariff  wall,  would  you  say  the  ultimate  consumers 
were  injured  by  driving  them  out  of  business  and  letting  competition 
come  in  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Of  course,  the  ultimate  consumer  would  be  injured  in 
that  case. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  is  what  I  thought.  And  your  answer  to  Mr. 
Longworth's  question  must  be  corrected. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  can  only  answer  with  regard  to  my  own  business. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  are  answering  as  it  relates  to  your  business. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  As  relating  to  our  business,  I  have  tried  to  say  that 
if  the  Potash  Syndicate  imported  Epsom  salts  to  this  country  when 
American  manufacturers  have  dismantled  their  plants,  using  them 
for  other  purposes — that  is,  these  departments — I  do  not  believe  the 
Potash  Syndicate  will  be  philanthropic  enough  to  continue  the  low 
prices. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Exactly.  Wherever  you  get  a  duty  so  low  that 
it  does  not  measure  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  production  here 
and  abroad,  then  you  drive  the  American  industry  out  of  business, 
do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes;  but  I  can  only  answer,  Mr.  Longworth,  for  the 
Ohio  Chemical  &  Manufacturing  Co.  and  on  Epsom  salts,  because  I 
am  not  familiar  enough  with  other  lines  of  business. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then,  I  ask  you  about  your  own.  If  the  duty  is 
placed  below  the  difference  of  wtiat  it  costs  you  to  produce  and  wnat 
it  costs  the  syndicate  in  Germany  to  produce,  or  your  competitor  in 
Germany  or  anywhere  else  to  produce,  you  can  not  continue  in  busi- 
ness? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  will  then  be  a  loss  to  the  consumer,  you 
having  been  a  competitor  and  having  been  driven  out  of  business. 
Will  he  benefit  by  that  reduced  tariff  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  He  will  not. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  By  the  reduced  price? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  think  he  will,  because  the  moment  we  cease 
to  manufacture  I  believe  the  German  Potash  Syndicate  would  increase 
the  price. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH,  Exactly;  that  is  it. 


244  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  And  that  the  ultimate  consumer  would  not  be  really 
as  well  off  as  he  is  to-day  with  the  competition  which  there  is  between 
Germany  and  America  in  producing  this  article  and  in  selling  it. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  that  is  what  protection  is,  without  using  the 
word? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  there  any  understanding  among  the  manufacturers 
who  are  protected  by  this  chemical  schedule  that  they  will  all  come 
here  and  say  that  they  want  this  tariff  maintained  at  the  old  rate  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  the  people  of  this  country  against  German 
syndicates  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  it  not  singular  that  every  one  of  them  advance  the 
same  argument  now  for  the  reason  of  keeping  the  tariff  up  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Of  course  that  is  the  evident  argument. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  does  it  happen  that  these  German  syndicates  do 
not  drive  out  of  business  manufacturers  who  are  manufacturing  the 
same  thing  over  in  free-trade  England,  just  a  few  miles  from  Ger- 
many, where  they  can  ship  their  goods  for  nothing  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  believe  they  have  an  arrangement  with  England.  I 
have  heard  it  once  or  twice.  I  think  it  was  in  connection  with  the 
brief  of  the  Victor  Chemical  Co.,  which  they  asked  me  to  file  for 
them.  When  I  read  the  brief  it  said  that  they  had  information  to 
the  effect  that  in  attempting  to  purchase  Epsom  salts  from  Germany 
there  was  some  provision  made  that  if  it  was  resold  to  England  there 
would  be  a  penalty  of  25  cents  per  100  pounds. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  That  is,  according  to  your  position,  the  German 
manufacturers  of  Epsom  salts — and  I  presume  the  same  argument 
would  apply  to  these  other  things — are  so  solicitous  of  the  English 
manufacturers  that  they  do  not  want  to  interfere  with  their  business, 
but  they  feel  so  antagonistic  toward  Americans  that  they  would  come 
over  here  and  destroy  their  business  and  put  up  prices  to  the  American 
consumers  when  they  would  not  permit  it  to  be  done  in  England  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Xo;  I  think  the  price  is  already  up  in  England.  This 
is  only  a  surmise  from  what  I  have  always  heard;  but  I  believe  the 
prices  in  England  .are  higher  than  they  are  in  America  on  Epsom  salts. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Do  you  think  they  have  succeeded  in  driving  out 
English  manufacturers  from  Emgland  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  Xo;  I  think  there  is  some  arrangement  there,  so  that 
they  use  America  as  a  dumping  ground. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Like  all  these  other  manufacturers,  do  you  pay  more 
wages  to  your  laborers  than  they  do  in  Germany? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  know  what  the  German  scale  is.  I  can  only 
say  it  is  extremely  hard  to  get  labor.  In  the  last  two  years  we  have 
increased  our  wages  about  33  £  per  cent. 

Mr.  IVAIXEY.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  almost  all  these 
American  manufacturers  claim  they  pay  twice  as  much  wages  as  they 
do  in  Germany  (and  I  presume  yon  would  claim  that,  too,  if  you  inves- 
tigated iO;  is  it  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  German  laborers  do  not 
come  over  here  and  get  the  benefit  of  the  increased  wages  we  pay? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  think  they  do. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  How  manv? 


SCHEDULE  A.  245 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  influx  of  German  laborers  is 
comparatively  small  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  have  no  idea. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  It  used  to  be  large  when  they  came  over  here  as 
agriculturists . 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  have  no  idea.  I  know  that  if  we  wanted  to-day  an 
excellent  chemist,  at  a  low  price,  we  would  probably  go  to  Germany 
for  him. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  competition  of  Ger- 
many and  England  has  been  so  keen  that  the  English  have  had  to 
change  their  patent  laws  and  compel  the  Germans  to  come  over  there  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  I  am  sorry  I  can  not  answer  your  question. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  There  is  no  patent  on  Epsom  salts  ? 

Mr.  SHOLES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  was  not  speaking  of  Epsom  salts.  I  had  in  mind  dye- 
stuffs  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Sholes  presented  the  following  brief,  relative  to  sulphate  of 
magnesia  (Epsom  salts),  on  behalf  of  the  Ohio  Chemical  &  Manufac- 
turing Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio: 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  United  States. 

GENTLEMEN:  As  manufacturers  of  sulphate  of  magnesia  (Epsom  salts)  we  desire 
to  submit  to  you  our  recommendation,  urging  most  strongly  the  retention  of  the  present 
duty  of  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound.  At  the  last  session  of  Congress  the  chemical 
schedule  as  agreed  upon  by  Congress  provided  for  a  rate  of  duty  of  one-tenth  of  1  cent 
per  pound. 

During  the  year  ending  June  30,  1907,  the  importation  of  Epsom  salts  amounted  to 
4,113,167  pounds,  and  under  the  present  law  the  importations  have  increased  until 
the  amount  reached  a  total  of  8,012,228  pounds  for  the  fiscal  year  of  1912,  thus  indi- 
cating that  the  rate  of  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound  provides  a  competitive  rate,  which 
undoubtedly  brings  the  maximum  of  revenue  for  the  Government.  The  revenue  to 
the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  1907,  upon  which  the  tariff  of  1909  was  based,  was 
$8,226.33,  and  for  the  fiscal  year  1912  was  $16,034.44,  showing  a  revenue  increase  of 
nearly  100  per  cent. 

The  domestic  production  of  Epsom  salts  amounts  to  about  16,000,000  pounds  per 
annum,  which  together  with  the  importations  of  about  8,000,000  pounds  indicates 
a  yearly  consumption  of  about  24,000,000  pounds.  At  the  rate  of  duty  imposed  on 
the  bill  of  the  last  session  the  importations  would  have  to  double  in  quantity  in  order 
to  produce  the  same  amount  of  revenue,  and  at  the  same  time  the  production  in  this 
country  would  necessarily  be  curtailed  in  at  least  the  corresponding  degree. 

Epsom  salts  is  made  largely  of  magnesite  and  sulphuric  acid.  The  magnesite  is 
principally  imported  from  Greece  without  duty,  but  your  attention  is  directed  to  the 
fact  that  the  chemical  schedule  of  the  last  session  provided  a  duty  of  $1  per  ton  upon 
magnesite  when  calcined.  Sulphuric  acid  enters  largely  into  the  production  under 
theprocess  used  by  four  of  six  producers  of  Epsom  salts. 

The  average  cost  of  producing  the  article  in  1911  by  our  company  was  71  cents 
per  100  pounds,  while  our  average  selling  price  was  73  cents  per  100  pounds. 
The  importations  to  this  country  come  principally  from  Germany  and  represent 
sales  made  by  the  Potash  Syndicate.  This  syndicate  obtains  the  article  as  a  by- 
product, and  they  are  able  under  some  circumstances  to  sell  same  at  a  very  low 
price.  However,  our  information  is  that  the  price  generally  on  Epsom  salts  in  for- 
eign countries  is  as  high  or  higher  than  in  this  country. 

Your  committee  has  information  relative  to  the  manner  in  which  the  German 
Potash  Syndicate  is  able  to  control  the  price  of  potash;  and  if  the  rate  of  duty  to 
this  country  is  lowered  in  the  manner  suggested,  it  would  seem  that  the  only  bene- 
ficiary would  be  this  oppressive  monopoly.  The  duty  as  it  now  stands  is  purely 
competitive;  does  not  allow  an  excessive  protection  to  American  industry.  In 
our  opinion  the  reduction  of  the  duty  to  one-tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound  will  practi- 
cally stop  the  manufacture  of  Epsom  salts  in  the  United  States  without  any  cor- 


246  TABIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

responding  benefit  to  the  general  revenues  of  the  Government.  A  very  large  pro- 
portion of  Epsom  salts  is  sold  in  the  drug  stores  throughout  the  country  at  prices 
ranging  from  5  to  10  cents  per  pound.  It  is  quite  evident  that  the  reduction  of  one- 
tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  the  tariff  duty  will  not  affect  the  price  of  Epsom  salts 
to  this  class  of  the  ultimate  consumers.  They  buy  only  a  few  ounces  at  a  time,  and 
the  price  to  them  would  undoubtedly  remain  the  same.  Epsom  salts  also  enters 
into  some  medicinal  preparations;  but  the  retail  price  of  these  could  not  possibly 
be  reduced  by  reason  of  any  reduction  in  the  pnce  of  Epsom  salts. 

We  have  already  invested  large  sums  in  our  endeavors  to  increase  the  production 
of  this  company  and  we  believe  that  other  manufacturers  are  also  increasing  their 
plants,  for  the  reason  that  if  Epsom  salta  is  to  be  manufactured  at  all  in  this  country 
under  present  conditions  a  greater  volume  of  business  must  be  done  in  order  to  pro- 
duce the  necessary  economies.  The  margin  between  the  cost  price  and  the  selling 
price  in  1911,  which  we  consider  a  representative  year  in  the  business,  was  only 
2  cents  per  100  pounds.  If  the  duty  is  reduced  as  proposed,  and  there  is  a  cor- 
responding reduction  in  the  selling  price,  we  will  be  doing  business  at  a  loss  and 
must  necessarily  go  out  of  business  of  manufacturing  the  article.  The  experience 
which  we  expect  under  such  circumstances  must  also  be  expected  by  all  other 
manufacturers  of  Epsom  salts  in  the  United  States. 

At  the  present  time  the  raw  product,  magnesite,  is,  as  stated  above,  imported  from 
the  Grecian  Archipelago.  There  are  large  deposits  of  this  mineral  in  the  United  States, 
notably  in  Santa  Clara  and  Stanilaus  Counties,  Cal.  In  these  places  are  found  the 
largest  known  deposits  in  the  world,  but  on  account  of  the  high  rail  freight  rates,  it  has 
been  found  impossible  to  transport  this  raw  product  to  the  eastern  part  of  the  United 
States,  where  Epsom  salts  are  manufactured.  It  is  our  opinion  that  with  the  opening 
of  the  Panama  Canal  all  manufacturers  will  be  able  to  obtain  the  California  magnesite 
and  so  assist  in  bringing  into  use  a  material  which  is  now  mined  only  in  small  quan- 
tities, due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  an  insufficient  consumption  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

Your  attention  is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  sulphuric  acid  enters  so  very  largely  into 
the  manufacture  of  the  article,  thus  affording  a  market  for  another  product  of  our 
manufacturers.  In  brief — 

First.  The  present  tariff  of  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound  provides  a  competitive  rate. 

Second.  A  reduction  below  present  rate  will  not,  except  by  entirely  wiping  out  the 
industry  in  this  country,  provide  a  larger  revenue  to  the  Government. 

Third.  The  reduction  of  the  tariff  would  result  in  benefit  only  to  the  German  Potash 
Syndicate,  an  oppressive  monopoly. 

Fourth.  The  destruction  of  American  producers  will  result  in  loss  of  large  amounts 
of  capital  with  no  corresponding  benefit. 

Fifth.  The  small  consumer  could  not  possibly  receive  any  benefit  from  the  reduction 
on  account  of  the  manner  of  selling  small  quantities. 

These  facts  are  not  presented  to  you  at  this  time  as  an  argument  for  protection,  but 
to  assist  you  in  demonstrating  the  fact  that  the  greatest  amount  of  revenue  to  the  Gov- 
ernment can  be  received  by  allowing  the  present  duty  to  stand. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  OHIO  CHEMICAL  &  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
J.  G.  SHOLES,  Secretary. 

JANUARY  4,  1913. 

BRIEF   OF   VICTOR    CHEMICAL  WORKS,  CHICAGO,  PROTESTING 
AGAINST  A  REDUCTION  OF  DUTY  ON  EPSOM  SALTS. 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AXD  MEAXS, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 
(inxTLEMEx:  The  tarill'  act  of  1909,  page  4,  line  34,  reads: 

Sulphate  of  magnesia  or  Epsom  salts,  one-fifth  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
The  proposed  Underwood  hill  now  reads,  on  page  11,  line  22: 
Sulphate  of  magnesia  or  Epsom  salts,  one-tenth  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

\\e  respectfully  ask  your  honorable  body  to  recommend  to  Con- 
gress the  retention  of  the  present  rate  of  duty  and  not  to  make  the 
reduction  lixed  in  the  proposed  Underwood  bill  for  the  following 

reasons: 


SCHEDULE   A.  247 

PARAGRAPH   31     EPSOM  SALTS. 

1.'  The  reduction  proposed  will  not  result  in  an  increase  of  revenue 
to  the  Government,  but  rather  a  decrease. 

2.  The  proposed  reduction  will  not  benefit  the  American  consumer, 
but  the  direct  beneficiary  of  it  will  be  a  foreign  monopoly. 

3.  The   committee's    decision    fixing   the    proposed    reduction  is 
based  on  erroneous  information. 

On  these  three  points  we  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

REDUCTION  PROPOSED  WILL  NOT  RESULT  IN  AN  INCREASE  OF  REVENUE 
TO    THE    GOVERNMENT,    BUT   RATHER   A   DECREASE. 

Attached  to  this  brief  will  be  found  statistics  on  the  importations 
of  Epsom  salts  taken  from  the  Foreign  Commerce  and  Navigation  of 
the  United  States,  published  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

It  will  be  noted  that  at  the  present  rate  of  duty  there  were  imported 
into  the  United  States  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1907,  4,113,167 
pounds  of  Epsom  salts.  Importations  from  then  on  (excepting  during 
1908,  when  they  were  3,631,245  pounds)  increased  until  they  reached 
8,012,226  pounds  in  1912. 

It  will  be  readily  recognized,  therefore,  that  the  import  business  in 
Epsom  salts  has  grown  tremendously  with  the  present  rate  of  duty. 

A  careful  estimate  of  the  domestic  production  of  Epsom  salts  places 
the  total  output  of  the  five  or  six  manufacturers  in  this  country  at 
about  15,000,000  pounds  per  annum.  If  the  duty  is  reduced,  it  will 
mean  that  16,000,000  pounds  per  annum  of  Epsom  salts  will  have  to 
be  brought  into  this  country  to  insure  to  the  Government  the  same 
amount  of  revenue  which  it  is  collecting  under  the  present  tariff  on 
8,000,000  pounds.  It  would  mean  that  to  obtain  the  same  revenue 
the  imports  would  have  to  be  doubled,  the  domestic  production  cut 
one-half.  Since  American  manufacturers  have  capital  invested  in 
plant  and  other  assets  of  value,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  for  a  while 
at  least  they  will  run  their  factories  at  a  loss,  rather  than  dismantle 
them,  so  that  Congress  can  not  expect  to  increase  the  tariff  revenue 
for  some  years  to  come  by  a  lowering  of  the  duty  on  Epsom  salts. 

As  we  have  shown  above,  if  all  the  Epsom  salts  consumed  were 
imported,  the  duty  under  the  proposed  reduced  tariff  rate  of  one- 
tenth  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  23,000,000  pounds  would  yield  a 
total  revenue  of  $23,000.  The  Government  now  is  collecting  one- 
fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  8,000,000,000  pounds  imported  under  the 
present  tariff  rate  of  one-fifth  cent  per  pound,  or  $16,000.  There- 
fore, as  a  revenue  producer,  the  proposed  decrease  in  duty  on  Epsom 
salts  could,  at  the  very  most,  yield  only  $7,000  per  annum  more  than 
is  now  collected,  and  that  only  after  the  American  factories  had  all 
been  closed  and  had  ceased  to  produce. 

We  respectfully  submit  to  your  honorable  committee  that  this 
increase  in  revenue  is  not  worth  while  if  it  carries  with  it  a  total 
destruction  of  an  industry  employing  American  capital  and  American 
labor. 


248  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM   SALTS. 

THE  PROPOSED  REDUCTION  WILL  NOT  BENEFIT  THE  AMERICAN  CON- 
SUMER, BUT  THE  DIRECT  BENEFICIARY  OF  IT  WILL  BE  A  FOREIGN 
MONOPOLY. 

Practical!}7"  all  the  Epsom  salts  which  is  manufactured  in  this 
country  is  produced  from  magnesite. 

Magnesite  is  a  mineral  which  is  imported  into  this  country  from 
Greece.  Austria,  and  other  European  countries.  The  Epsom  salts 
which  is  imported  is  made  in  Germany  and  is  produced  from  kieserite. 

Kieserite  is  one  of  the  minerals  found  in  the  potash  mines  of  Ger- 
many, and  its  production  and  sale  is  under  the  control  of  the  German 
Potash  Syndicate.  The  subsidiary  companies  of  this  syndicate 
manufacture  Epsom  salts  and  kieserite.  and  it  is  this  which  is  imported 
into  this  country.  Kieserite  is  a  crude,  impure  Epsom  salts,  and  all 
that  is  necessary  is  to  refine  it  in  order  to  produce  the  Epsom  salts  of 
commerce. 

To  produce  Epsom  salts  from  magnesite  in  this  country,  the 
magnesite  must  undergo  expensive  chemical  processes  and  we  are  free 
to  admit  that  the  production  of  Epsom  salts  from  magnesite  is  more 
expensive  than  is  the  production  of  Epsom  salts  from  kieserite.  It 
is  true  that  both  magnesite  and  kieserite,  under  the  present  tariff, 
enter  the  country  free  of  duty,  but  since  kieserite  is  controlled  by  the 
German  monopoly,  which  also  makes  Epsom  salts,  it  is  self-evident 
that  kieserite  is  available  to  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  only 
on  such  conditions  as  the  German  monopoly,  in  active  competition 
on  the  finished  material,  sees  fit  to  impose. 

The  average  market  price  for  Epsom  salts  in  barrels,  car  lots,  in 
this  country,  is  somewhere  around  90  cents  per  100  pounds,  f.  o.  b. 
works.  We  are  advised,  and  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  it 
is  true,  that  the  prices  governing  in  Germany  and  England  are  con- 
siderably higher.  In  fact,  a  quotation  which  we  had  some  time  ago 
from  Germany  and  which  named  a  low  price  on  Epsom  salts,  was 
made  with  the  provision  that  the  product  was  for  delivery  and  sale 
in  the  United  States,  that  if  it  were  sold  in  the  United  Kingdom,  a 
penalty  of  £1  per  ton  would  be  exacted.  £1  per  ton  is  approxi- 
mately 25  cents  per  100  pounds. 

Your  honorable  committee  will  agree,  therefore,  that  the  assump- 
tion is  fair  that  if  the  proposed  change  of  disty  carries  with  it  a 
destruction  of  the  American  manufacturing  industry,  it  will  cer- 
tainly not  mean  a  lower  cost  to  the  consumer.  As  soon  as  the 
domestic  competition  is  snuffed  out,  we  can  rely  on  the  foreigner 
placing  a  higher  price  on  his  product  than  is  now  in  effect  under  the 
present  system  of  competition  and  the  consumer,  instead  of  paying 
less,  will  pay  more  for  his  product. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  Congress 
in  these  days,  where  so  much  legislative  effort  is  exerted  toward  the 
rectification  of  evils  due  to  combinations  and  trusts,  should  wipe 
out  of  existence  an  American  industry  which  is  on  a  strictly  com- 
petitive basis,  in  order  to  hand  the  business  over  to  a  foreign  monopoly 
over  which  Congress  \has  no  control,  and  the  selfishness  and  power  of 
which  has  made  itself  so  strongly  felt  in  the  potash  controversy. 


SCHEDULE  A.  249 

PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 

That  the  very  existence  of  this  American  manufacturing  industry 
is  immediately  threatened  by  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  is  perhaps 
best  emphasized  by  this  statement  of  fact: 

Two  years  ago  the  then  largest  producers  of  Epsom  salts,  viz: 
the  Liquid  Carbonic  Co.,  of  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  found  it  unprofitable 
to  continue  even  at  the  present  tariff  rate,  the  manufacture  of  Epsom 
salts.  It  discontinued  that  portion  of  its  business  entirely,  disman- 
tled its  plant,  and  sold  its  machinery.  We  leave  it  to  the  imagination 
of  the  members  of  your  honorable  committee  as  to  the  effect  a  still 
lower  rate  of  duty  will  have  on  what  remains  of  the  industry. 

THE   COMMITTEE'S   DECISION   FIXING  THE   PROPOSED   REDUCTION   is 

BASED  ON  ERRONEOUS  INFORMATION. 

Report  326,  which  is  the  report  on  Schedule  A,  submitted  to  Con- 
gress by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  states  on  page  88  the 
consumption  in  this  country  of  Epsom  salts  during  1905  as  30,677,838 
pounds  and  the  consumption  for  1910  as  47,785,000  pounds.  On 
page  328  the  consumption  of  Epsom  salts  for  1904  is  given  as  15,935,837 
pounds. 

According  to  these  figures  it  would  appear  that  the  consumption  of 
Epsom  salts  doubled  in  1905  over  what  it  was  during  1904. 

No  such  increase  hi  the  consumption  took  place.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  figure  of  actual  consumption  of  Epsom  salts,  given  by  us  as 
23,000,000  pounds  per  annum  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1912, 
is  a  conservative  estimate  and  based  on  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
business  and  is,  we  believe,  as  near  accurate  as  can  be  had.  When  it 
is  considered,  therefore,  that  the  importations  of  Epsom  salts  of 
8,000,000  pounds  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1912,  represent 
fully  one-third  of  the  total  consumption  in  this  country  and  tnat  the 
importations  are  increasing  at  the  present  rate  of  duty,  we  believe 
that  your  honorable  committee  will  agree  that  the  foreign  producer 
is  already  in  the  position  to  control  the  Epsom-salts  business  in  this 
country  and  a  reduction  in  duty  will  simply  strengthen  the  foreigner's 
hold  on  the  business,  without  any  advantage  to  the  American  con- 
sumer, the  American  Government,  nor  the  American  manufacturer. 

Further,  on  page  229  of  the  same  report,  a  statement  is  made  that 
Epsom  salts  is  used  in  the  industry  in  dye  and  print  works  for  making 
carbonate  of  magnesia,  and  the  argument  has  been  made  that  Epsom 
salts,  being  an  important  raw  material  hi  the  dye  and  print  industry, 
the  duty  should  be  reduced.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  quantity  of 
Epsom  salts  used  in  the  dye  and  print  industry  is  negligible.  In  our 
opinion  it  amounts  to  less  than  50,000  pounds  per  annum.  The  prin- 
cipal use  of  Epsom  salts  is  for  pharmaceutical  purposes. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  are  convinced  that  the  American  Epsom  salts  industry  will  not 
be  able  to  maintain  itself  for  very  long  even  at  the  present  rate  of 
duty,  but  believing  that  the  principle  01  protection  is  not  one  that  is 
being  considered  in  framing  tariff  schedules  at  this  time,  we  refrain 
from  suggesting  the  wisdom  of  increasing  the  tariff  rate  on  Epsom 
salts  to  protect  the  industry. 


250 


TABIFF  HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPH  31— EPSOM  SALTS. 


We  believe,  however,  that  on  the  facts  as  shown  not  even  the  most 
strenuous  advocate  of  free  trade  will  be  in  favor  of  a  reduction  of  the 
duty  on  Epsom  salts,  and  we  respectfully  but  earnestly  petition  your 
honorable  committee  that  the  present  rate  of  one-filth  cent  per 
pound  be  maintained. 

VICTOR  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 
By  AUGUST  KOCHS,  General  Manager. 
CHICAGO,  January  2, 1918. 

Imports  entered  for  consumption,  Epsom  salts. 
[Commerce  and  navigation  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bureau  of  Statistics.] 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Duties 

Value 
per  unit 
quan- 
tity. 

Actual 
and  com- 
puted ad 
valorem 
rate. 

Year  ending  June  30  1907                

Pounds. 
4,  113,  167 

$16,072 

$8,226.33 

$0.004 

Per  cent. 
51.18 

1908                            

3,631,245 

12,094 

7,  262.  47 

.003 

60.05 

1909                                                    

8,053,235 

26,138 

16,  106.  45 

.003 

61.62 

1910  

6,147,159 

27,330 

12,294.32 

.004 

44.98 

1911  

6,  204,  219 

23,092 

12,408.42 

.004 

53.73 

1912  

8,  012,  226 

31,332 

16,024.44 

BRIEF  OF  MECHLING  BEOS.  MANUFACTURING  CO.,  CAMDEN, 
N.  J.,  RELATIVE  TO  EPSOM  SALTS. 

CAMDEN,  N.  J.,  January  4, 1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  submit  to  your  honorable  committee  the  follow- 
ing reasons  against  a  reduction  in  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  Epsom 
salts.  A  reduction  in  the  duty  will  not  in  any  way  change  the  price 
to  the  consumers  at  large.  It  will  probably  increase  importations 
and  thereby  reduce  the  amount  of  products  manufactured  in  the 
United  States.  A  reduction  in  the  tariff  can  not  possibly  change 
the  price  to  the  ultimate  consumer,  as  the  public  at  large  buys  Epsom 
salts  in  minute  quantities.  A  reduction  in  the  tariff  would  not  affect 
the  retail  prices. 

We  further  protest  on  the  ground  that  a  reduction  of  the  tariff 
on  a  low-priced  article  is  manifestly  unfair  to  manufacturers  located 
on  the  Atlantic  coast,  as  it  opens  competition  from  abroad,  which  they 
alone  feel.  The  interior  points  are  not  affected  because  the  imported 
goods  can  not  come  into  their  territory  on  account  of  the  freight 
rate  from  the  seacoast. 

The  object  of  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  is  therefore  defeated,  inas- 
much as  prices  are  not  reduced  excepting  along  the  Atlantic  coast. 

Trusting  that  your  committee  will  give  the  foregoing  their  consid- 
eration, wo  beg  to  remain, 

Very  truly,  yours,       MECHLING  BROS.  MANUFACTURING  Co. 
BEXJ.  S.  MECHLING,  Secretary. 


SCHEDULE   A.  251 

PARAGRAPH  32— ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT. 

PARAGRAPH   32. 

Alizarin  assistant,  sulpho-ricinoleic  acid,  and  ricinoleic  acid,  and  soaps  con- 
taining castor  oil,  any  of  the  foregoing  in  whatever  form,  in  the  manufacture 
of  which  fifty  per  centum  or  more  of  castor  oil  is  used,  thirty  cents  per  gallon; 
in  the  manufacture  of  which  less  than  fifty  per  centum  of  castor  oil  is  used, 
fifteen  cents  per  gallon;  all  other  alizarin  assistants  and  all  soluble  greases 
used  in  processes  of  softening,  dyeing,  or  finishing,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

For  alizarin  assistant,  see  E.  C.  Klipstein,  page  229;  T.  S.  Todd  &  Co.,  page  252; 
Bosson  &  Lane,  page  254. 

ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT. 

BRIEF  OF  BAKER  CASTOR  OIL  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  RESPECT- 
ING ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT  OR  SOLUBLE  OIL. 

The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Under  the  Dingley  bill  the  provision  with  respect  to  alizarin  assist- 
ant has  been  subject  to  criticism,  and  several  cases  have  been  carried 
to  the  courts.  It  is  therefore  important  that  the  reading  of  this  pro- 
vision should  be  so  arranged  as  to  eliminate  dispute  and  litigation, 
and  also  be  so  broad  as  to  prevent  the  real  intent  of  the  act  from  being 
avoided. 

We  are  not  manufacturers  of  alizarin  assistant,  but  sell  castor  oil 
to  those  makers  of  alizarin  assistant  who  do  not  manufacture  their 
own  castor  oil.  Many  foreign  manufacturers  of  alizarin  assistant 
have  branch  houses  in  this  country  and  import  this  oil  in  quite  large 
Quantities,  as  you  will  see  from  the  records  of  imports.  Consequently 
it  can  not  be  claimed  that  30  cents  per  gallon  protection  on  this  article 
is  prohibitive. 

Alizarin  assistant  usually  consists  of  castor  oil  treated  with  sul- 
phuric acid,  etc.,  and  is  used  as  a  mordant,  and  has  been  variously 
known  under  the  names  of  alizarin  assistant,  soluble  oil,  Turkey  red 
oil,  oleate  of  soda,  padding  liquor,  etc.;  various  importers  bring  it 
under  various  names  in  order  to  endeavor  to  pass  it  through  the  cus- 
tomhouse at  a  lower  rate  of  duty  than  the  Government  exacts. 

It  is  made  of  varying  strengths,  the  strength  usually  used  by  the 
consumer  being  what  is  called  50  per  cent,  that  being  the  percentage 
of  castor  oil  used  in  the  mixture.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  have 
almost  the  entire  mass  of  this  article  consist  of  what  was  originally 
pure  castor  oil,  in  which  shape  it  can  be  and  has  been  imported  into 
this  country,  and  afterwards,  by  the  addition  of  water,  can  readily  be 
reduced  to  the  required  strength. 

Alizarin  assistant  has  the  property  of  holding  castor  oil  in  solution, 
just  as  water  would  hold  sugar  in  solution,  and  the  castor  oil  could  be 
thus  mechanically  mixed  with  it,  imported  into  this  country,  and 
afterwards  recovered  from  the  mixture  as  castor  oil  by  a  very  simple 
process. 

Referring  to  H.  R.  20182,  this  bill  made  a  reduction  of  duty  on 
alizarin  assistant  to  15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  regardless  of  the  per  cent 
of  castor  oil  in  the  assistant,  and  reduced  castor  oil  to  20  cents  per 
gallon. 

To  illustrate  the  gross  injustice  of  a  duty  of  15  per  cent  ad  valorem 
on  assistant  as  compared  with  20  cents  per  gallon  on  castor  oil  we  beg 
to  submit  a  concrete  example: 


252  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  32— ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT. 

A  imports  100  pounds  of  alizarin  assistant  containing  50  per  cent 
castor  oil  or  50  pounds,  costing  at  4£  cents  per  pound,  $45.  Cost  $45 
at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem  the  duty  would  be  67£  cents. 

B  imports  50  pounds  of  castor  oil  and  pays  duty  of  20  cents  a  gallon, 
or  $1.25.  (Fifty  pounds  equals  6i  gallons.) 

This  little  example  is  sufficiently  plain  to  illustrate  how  necessary 
it  is  to  have  the  rate  of  duty  on  alizarin  assistant  within  5  cents  per 
gallon  of  the  rate  of  duty  on  straight  castor  oil. 

We  suggest  that  the  wording  of  the  tariff  be  as  follows : 

"Alizarin  assistant,  by  whatever  name  known,  whether  liquid, 
solid,  or  in  paste,  10  cents  per  gallon  when  containing  less  than  50  per 
cent  castor  oil,  and  15  cents  per  gallon  when  containing  over  50  per 
cent  castor  oil,  including  all  soluble  greases  used  in  processes  of 
softening,  dyeing,  or  finishing." 

We  would  state  that  the  clause  "by  whatever  name  known"  is  very 
important,  as  parties  have  endeavored  to  evade  the  tariff  by  bringing 
it  in  under  various  names.  The  words  "liquid,  paste,  or  solid"  are 
necessary,  as  parties  have  had  alizarin  assistant  made  abroad,  car- 
rying the  process  to  the  point  of  saponification  (which  can  be  readily 
done  by  expelling  the  moisture)  and  then  passing  it  through  the  cus- 
tomhouse as  "soap." 

Castor  oil  and  alizarin  assistant  are  manufactured  here  by  many 
concerns,  and  the  use  of  castor  oil  in  this  country  is  small  compared 
with  what  it  is  used  abroad,  consequently  cost  of  manufacturing  and 
distribution  is  much  cheaper  abroad. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

THE  BAKER  CASTOR  OIL  Co., 

100  Williams  Street,  New  York  City. 
F.  H.  MARSH,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

JANUARY  2,  1913. 

BRIEF  OF  T.  S.  TODD  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  CUSTOMHOUSE 
BROKERS  AND  FORWARDERS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  8,  1918. 
The  WATS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  manufacturers  of  alizarin  assistant  desire  to 
brin<*  to  your  attention  the  close  relationship  that  exists  between  this 
article  and  castor  oil  and  which  they  hope  will  be  recognized  and  main- 
tained when  tariff  provision  is  made  for  them. 

Should  provision  be  made  for  alizarin  assistant  without  regard  to 
its  castor-oil  content,  such  provision  would,  without  doubt,  more  or 
less  nullify  the  provision  for  castor  oil  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
revenue. 

Alizarin  assistant  is  made  of  castor  oil  which  has  been  treated  with 
sulphuric  acid,  washed  and  neutralized  by  alkalies  so  as  to  be  made 
perfectly  soluble  in  water,  and  it  is  used  as  a  mordant  and  softener, 
and  for  fixing  the  dyes  in  cotton  fabrics. 

In  II.  R.  201 82  provision  was  made  for  castor  oil  at  20  cents  per 
gallon;  alizarin  assistant  was  provided  for  at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
without  limitation  as  to  castor-oil  content. 


SCHEDULE    A.  253 

PARAGRAPH  32— ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT. 

As  castor  oil  is  the  component  material  of  value  in  alizarin  assistant 
it  seems  manifest  that  the  duty  should  be  based  on  such  material,  and 
previous  tariff  legislation  has  followed  this  reasoning.  In  the  tariff 
of  1890  the  duty  was  80  cents  per  gallon  when  containing  more  than 
50  per  cent  castor  oil,  and  40  cents  per  gallon  when  containing  less 
than  50  per  cent  castor  oil. 

The  tariff  of  1894  provided  for  it  at  30  per  cent,  and  because  of  this 
marked  reduction  the  manufacture  in  this  country  was  entirely 
eliminated;  the  tariff  of  1897  provided  for  duty  of  30  cents  per  gal- 
lon when  containing  more  than  50  per  cent  castor  oil,  and  15  cents 
per  gallon  when  containing  less  than  50  per  cent,  and  this  latter  pro- 
vision was  continued  without  change  in  the  tariff  of  1909,  thus,  wnile 
very  pronounced  reduction  in  the  rate  covering  this  material  has  been 
made  during  the  past  22  years,  with  exception  of  three  years,  duty 
has  always  been  collected  based  on  its  component  material  which 
undoubtedly  is  always  the  basis  of  tariff  enactment,  otherwise  sub- 
terfuge might  easily  defeat  its  purpose. 

If  the  above-mentioned  rate  of  15  per  cent  ad  valorem  should  be 
made  a  part  of  the  proposed  bill,  the  effect  would  be  that,  based  on 
the  present  English  price  of  £16  10s.,  material  imported  and  described 
as  alizarin  assistant,  by  reason  of  the  mixture  of  sulphonating  sub- 
stances incorporated  therein,  could  go  to  the  point  of  95  per  cent 
castor  oil  and,  the  foreign  substances  being  tnen  removed,  would 
leave  castor  oil  of  sufficient  purity  for  large  commercial  use,  and  the 
duty  would  be  8^  cents  per  gallon  instead  of  19  cents,  which  it  should 
be  as  castor  oil;  and  alizarin  assistant  of  80  per  cent  castor-oil  content 
would  pay  duty  of  7 1  cents  per  gallon  instead  of  16  cents,  which  it 
should  do  as  castor  oil,  and,  further,  if  under  50  per  cent  castor-oil 
content,  the  duty  would  be  4.3  cents  instead  of  10  cents,  which  it 
should  relatively  be. 

Advantage  would  undoubtedly  be  taken  of  such  a  condition  to  the 
extent  that  only  castor  oil  which  was  intended  for  human  consump- 
tion and  must  conform  to  the  provisions  and  requirements  of  the 
United  States  Pharmacopoeia  would  be  declared  for  the  rate  provided 
for  this  material. 

How  closely  this  article  comes  into  competition  with  the  foreign  is 
illustrated  by  the  following :  The  present  price  of  alizarin  assistant  of 
50  per  cent  castor  oil  abroad  is  £16  10s.  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  or 
3.6  cents  per  pound.  Adding  15  per  cent  duty,  as  above  proposed, 
makes  the  price  duty  paid  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  4|  cents  per 
pound,  or  fully  1J  cents  per  pound  less  than  American  cost  of  pro- 
duction. 

If  there  is  applied  10  cents  per  gallon  duty  on  that  containing  50 
per  cent  castor  oil,  the  foreign  would  cost  5^  cents  duty  paid  and 
place  the  American  producer  in  a  position  to  compete. 

In  the  present  law  castor  oil  is  provided  for  at  35  cents  per  gallon 
and  alizarin  assistant,  when  containing  over  50  per  cent  of  castor  oil, 
at  30  cents  per  gallon,  which  slight  difference  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  lawmaking  body  recognized  the  danger  that  would  be 
present  if  provision  for  it  was  made  other  than  on  the  basis  of  its 
castor-oil  content. 

The  annual  production  of  alizarin  assistant  in  this  country  is  about 
275,000  gallons,  and  the  imports  for  1912  were  108,331  gallons. 


254  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  32— ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT. 

The  reduction  in  H.  R.  20182  on  castor  oil  from  35  cents  to  20 
cents  per  gallon  is  43  per  cent,  and  we  earnestly  pray  that  this  sanie 
ratio  of  reduction  be  maintained  on  alizarin  assistant  when  contain- 
ing over  50  per  cent  of  castor  oil,  thus  making  the  duty  17  cents  per 
gallon,  and  on  alizarin  assistant  containing  50  per  cent  or  under  10 
cents  per  gallon. 

While  this  latter  provision  is  slightly  less  than  43  per  cent  reduc- 
tion, it  will  no  more  than  compensate  for  the  increased  cost  of  pack- 
ages, labor,  and  transportation  on  the  lower  grade,  as  these  items 
bear  a  larger  percentage  to  cost  of  production  than  do  the  higher 
grades. 

Such  provisions  would  be  in  accord  with  the  policy  of  tariff  reduc- 
tion, allow  the  continuation  of  an  American  industry  representing  a 
very  considerable  amount  of  labor  and  investment,  and  at  the  same 
tune  tend  to  good  administration  by  removing  the  temptation  for  the 
practice  of  deception  or  fraud  upon  the  revenue. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  yours,  respectfully, 

T.  S.  TODD. 

Firms  represented. — The  Oil  Seeds  Co.,  New  York;  Providence 
Drysalters  Co.,  Providence,  R.  I.;  Thos.  Leyland  &  Co.,  Boston, 
Mass.;  John  Shaw  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Jacques  Wolf  &  Co., 
Passaic,  N.  J.;  Maas  &  Waldstein  Co.,  New  York. 

BRIEF   OF  BOSSON   &   LANE,   ATLANTIC,   MASS.,   REGARDING 
ALIZARIN  ASSISTANT,  ETC. 

ATLANTIC,  MASS.,  January  4,  1913. 
DANIEL  C.  ROPER,  Esq., 

Clerk  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAK  Sm:  We  respectfully  ask  if  you  will  please  file  this  com- 
munication with  the  committee,  which  gives  our  position  with  refer- 
ence to  items  of  alizarin  assistant  and  soluble  oil,  Schedule  A,  para- 
graph 30,  and  castor  oil,  paragraph  31,  and  castor  seeds,  Schedule 
G,  paragraph  262,  tariff  law  of  1909,  which  is  the  same  for  these  items 
as  the  law  of  1897. 

These  three  items  are  so  closely  related  that  consideration  of  one 
should  necessarily  include  the  others,  from  the  business  interests' 
point  of  view. 

From  the  fact  that  the  present  rates  have  proven  to  be  satisfactory 
to  manufacturers  of  alizarin  assistant  in  this  country,  and  inasmuch 
as  foreign-made  alizarin  assistant  has  and  is  now  being  imported, 
we  feel  that  the  present  tariff  lias  not  been  a  burden  to  the  consumer, 
and  we  are  not,  therefore,  in  a  position  to  ask  for  any  revision;  but  we 
recognize  the  popular  demand  for  lower  tariff  rates,  and  it  is  our 
desire  to  call  attention  to  certain  pertinent  points  with  reference  to 
the  subjects  mentioned. 

If  lower  rates  are  to  be  made  we  hope  that  they  will  be  equalized 
in  such  a  way  t  hat  the  industry  in  this  country  will  not  be  jeopardized, 
and  this  we  believe  will  be  the  case,  provided  your  honoraole  com- 
mittee u'ive  due  consideration  to  the  items  mentioned,  inclusive.  It- 
has  been  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  to  us  that  the  manufacturing 


SCHEDULE  A.  255 

PABAGBAPH  32— AUZABIN  ASSISTANT. 

interests  have  received  such  general  assurance  from  our  Representa- 
tives at  Washington  and  from  our  President-elect  that  a  revision  of 
the  tariff  downward  is  to  be  made  in  such  manner  that  our  industries 
will  not  suffer. 

It  is  our  firm  conviction  that  this  can  be  done  with  the  commodities 
in  which  we  are  now  interested. 

Our  position  hi  placing  this  matter  before  you  is  based  upon  an 
experience  in  the  business  covering  more  than  30  years,  the  past  18 
having  been  under  the  present  partnership. 

Previous  to  the  tariff  law  of  1894  the  writer  sold  alizarin  assistant 
made  in  the  United  States.  During  the  operation  of  the  tariff  law 
of  1894  we  sold  imported  alizarin  assistant. 

That  law,  Schedule  A,  paragraph  26,  charged  30  per  cent  ad  valo- 
rem on  alizarin  assistant,  and  paragraph  27,  castor  oil,  at  $0.35  per 
gallon;  Schedule  G,  paragraph  205,  castor  seeds,  at  $0.25  per  bushel. 

This  permitted  alizarin  assistant  to  be  imported  at  a  cost  of  $0.04£ 
per  pound  for  50  per  cent.  Under  such  conditions  we  could  not 
manufacture  the  product  here  and  compete;  hence  we  sold  the 
imported  goods. 

The  tariff  law  of  1897  charged  alizarin  assistant  $0.15  per  gallon 
for  less  than  50  per  cent  castor-oil  contents,  and  $0.30  per  gallon  for 
higher  grade  than  50  per  cent.  This  was  equal  to  almost  $0.02  and 
$0.04  per  pound,  respectively. 

The  same  law  charged  castor  oil  at  $0.35  per  gallon,  equal  to  $0.04f 
per  pound. 

The  same  law  charged  castor  seeds  at  $0.25  per  bushel,  equal  to 
$0.01£  per  pound  for  oil  contents. 

Upon  the  passage  and  operation  of  this  law  we  started  the  manu- 
facture of  alizarin  assistant,  and  within  a  few  years  we  began  to 
import  castor  seeds  and  started  the  manufacture  of  our  own  castor 
oil,  which  we  have  been  continuing  since  that  time. 

The  tariff  law  of  1909  remained  same  as  law  of  1897  in  items 
referred  to. 

Alizarin  assistant  is  sold  by  the  pound.  It  is  manufactured  from 
castor  oil,  the  castor  oil  being  extracted  from  castor  seeds.  The 
present  cost  to  produce  a  pound  of  alizarin  assistant  containing  50 
per  cent  of  castor  oil,  including  barrels,  carting,  labor,  and  chemicals, 
is  $0.05^,  but  not  including  cost  of  selling  or  any  percentage  of  fixed 
charges. 

Castor  oil  has  been  quoted  selling  abroad  at  $0.06  per  pound. 
Based  upon  this  price,  and  as  near  as  we  can  estimate  their  cost,  to 
produce  a  pound  of  alizarin  assistant  a  49  per  cent  grade  could  be 
imported  at  $0.05^.  We  take  49  per  cent  rather  than  50  per  cent, 
inasmuch  as  the  duty  is  only  one-half  as  much  on  the  49  per  cent 
grade,  which  is  near  enough  for  the  purpose  to  compare  witn  cost  of 
our  50  per  cent. 

Our  average  cost  to  produce  a  pound  of  castor  oil,  going  back  for 
about  two  years,  figures  $0.0904,  including  barrels,  carting,  usual 
discount,  but  not  including  per  cent  of  fixed  charges. 

We  understand  that  castor  oil  is  sold  in  England  at  $0.06  per 
pound. 


256  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  32— ALIZABIN  ASSISTANT, 

With  the  present  duty  of  $0.35  per  gallon,  equal  to  $0.04f  per 
pound,  this  would  bring  price  of  imported  oil  to  about  $0.10$  per 

pound. 

Our  figures  are  based  upon  commercial  castor  oil.  We  do  not 
manufacture  the  medicinal  quality. 

The  present  duty  on  castor  seeds  is  $0.25  per  bushel,  or  equal 
to  approximately  $0.01  \  per  pound  of  castor-oil  contents. 

The  yield  of  oil  varies  from  35  to  40  per  cent.  The  price  of  seeds 
varies  from  time  to  time,  so  that  the  cost  of  oil  should  be  averaged 
in  order  to  obtain  a  fair  basis. 

The  key  to  the  situation  seems  to  be  with  the  raw  material.  With 
the  tariff  reduced  on  the  castor  seeds  a  corresponding  reduction  may 
be  made  on  both  castor  oil  and  alizarin  assistant  without  injury  to 
the  manufacturing  end.  We  have  never  used  American  castor  seeds; 
have  never  had  any  offered  to  us,  and  do  not  know  that  it  is  or  has 
been  a  profitable  industry.  In  fact,  we  doubt  if  castor  seed  raising 
is  of  any  interest  to  the  farming  sections  of  the  country.  At  any 
rate,  without  a  market  of  castor  oil  manufacturers  the  castor-seed 
crop  would  be  useless  in  this  country. 

We  trust  that  whatever  reductions  are  made  will  be  equalized,  as 
based  upon  the  castor-oil  contents.  With  free  seed  our  industry 
would  stand  a  reduction  of  $0.01^  per  pound  or  $0.10  per  gallon  on 
the  castor  oil,  and  $0.05  per  gallon,  or  $0.00f  per  pound  on  50  per 
cent  alizarin  assistant.  We  fear  that  a  further  reduction  on  the 
manufactured  goods  would  interfere  with  the  success  of  the  industry 
in  this  country.  Wages  paid  by  us  are  from  $14.50  to  $16  per  week. 
Other  expenses,  including  selling  expenses,  are  no  doubt  much  higher 
here  than  abroad.  We  would  like  to  call  attention  to  another  point — 
when  the  work  we  are  engaged  in  becomes  unprofitable,  we  may  turn 
our  hands  to  something  else.  We  intend  to  remain  in  business,  and 
do  not  now  wish  to  appear  before  your  committee  as  the  time-honored 
infant  in  swaddling  clothes,  but  in  connection  with  an  object  to 
obtain  lower  costs  for  the  consumer,  we  have  observed  that  when 
the  foreign  manufacturer  does  not  have  competition  in  this  country 
his  prices  rise  beyond  our  first  calculations,  considerably  displacing 
our  estimate  that  the  reduction  in  the  tariff  rate  was  to  secure  a  cor- 
responding reduction  in  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  And  in  the  mean- 
time the  present  competition  among  us  manufacturers  in  this  country 
in  this  line  is  a  great  regulator  of  prices.  There  has  never  been  to 
our  knowledge  any  hint  of  combination  or  understanding.  There  is 
a  sharp  fight  to  secure  business,  and  this  is  a  pretty  good  guaranty 
of  low  prices. 

Our  industry  is  not  large,  but  we  trust  it  will  have  your  thoughtful 
consideration. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

BOSSON  &  LANE. 


SCHEDULE   A.  257 

PARAGRAPH  33— CASTOR  OIL. 
PABAGBAPH  33. 

Castor  oil,  thirty-five  cents  per  gallon. 

See  S.  L.  Jones  &  Co.,  page  258;  Baker  Castor  Oil  Co.,  page  251;  T.  S.  Todd  &  Co., 
page  252;  Bosson  &  Lane,  page  254. 

CASTOR  OIL. 

BRIEF   SUBMITTED   BY   THE   BAKER   CASTOR   OIL   CO.,   NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

JANUARY  2,  1913. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C.: 

As  the  largest  manufacturers  of  castor  oil  in  the  United  States,  and 
located  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  we  use  entirely  imported  castor  seed 
produced  principally  in  India  and  Brazil. 

We  do  not  desire  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  with  an 
appearance  in  person,  and  will  state  in  a  few  words  that  we  are 
heartily  in  accord  with  the  committee  for  a  revision  of  the  tariff 
downward,  and  only  ask  such  consideration  as  will  enable  us  to  con- 
tinue the  business  that  was  established  55  years  ago.  The  House  bill 
(H.  R.  20182,  62d  Cong.)  which  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
fixed  the  duty  on  castor  oil  at  20  cents  per  gallon.  The  duty  under 
the  Payne  tariff  law,  and  which  is  the  auty  that  is  now  in  effect,  is 
35  cents  per  gallon.  A  lowering  of  the  duty  to  20  cents  per  gallon 
figures  out  some  43  per  cent  reduction.  A  reduction  of  this  nature 
is  exceedingly  drastic,  and  we  fear  will  seriously  affect  the  castor  oil 
industry  of  the  United  States  unless  accompanied  with  a  reduction 
of  the  duty  on  the  raw  product — castor  seed.  The  present  duty  on 
castor  seed  is  25  cents  per  bushel  of  50  pounds,  equal  to  the  castor- 
oil  content  contained  therein  some  12  cents  per  gallon.  We  there- 
fore pray  your  honorable  committee  to  take  due  notice  of  the  relation 
of  castor  oil  to  castor  seed  in  preparing  these  schedules. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

THE  BAKER  CASTOR  OIL  Co., 

100  'William  Street,  New  York  City. 
F.  H.  MARSH,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  S.  L.  JONES   &  CO.,   SAN  FRANCISCO, 

CAI. 

S.  L.  JONES  &  Co.  (!NC.), 
San  Francisco,  January  15,  1913. 
Hon.  JULIUS  KAHN, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt,  of  your  esteemed  letter 
of  the  31st  of  December,  1912,  and  will  endeavor  to  give  you  such 
facts  and  figures  as  will  be  of  service  to  you  in  putting  the  question 
of  duties  on  oils  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

In  the  first  place,  such  oils  as  kapok  seed  oil,  perilla  oil,  etc.,  were 
practically  unknown  in  this  country  when  the  present  tariff  on  oils 
was  drawn  up  or  they  would  undoubtedly  have  been  placed  on  the 
free  list  as  they  are  only  suitable  for  manufacturing  purposes  and 

78959°— VOL  1—13 17 


258  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  33— CASTOR  OIL. 

are  not  raised  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time.  There  has 
been  no  account  kept  of  the  importations  of  these  outside  oils,  as  they 
have  been  run  into  the  statistics  as  "all  other  oils." 

Castor  oil  (not  suitable  for  pharmaceutical  purposes) —We  would 
strongly  suggest  that  this  oil  be  placed  on  the  free  list,  as  in  this  case 
the  American  soap  manufacturers  could  use  same  and  turn  out  a 
soap  which  would  compete  with  the  large  quantities  of  so-called 
castile  soaps  imported  from  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Mediter- 
ranean, i.  e.,  Italy,  France,  etc.  This  oil  is  absolutely  of  no  value  for 
the  making  of  pharmaceutical  castor  oil,  as  the  latter  must  be  taken 
from  the  first  cold  pressings  only,  while  ordinary  commercial  castor 
oil  is  extracted  by  the  addition  of  heat,  thereby  destroying  its  value 
for  pharmaceutical  purposes.  This  oil  is  especially  adapted  for  the 
making  of  the  castile  style  of  soap,  and  if  our  soap  manufacturers 
could  get  hold  of  this  oil  cheaply  enough  they  could  then  compete 
with  the  foreign  product.  It  should  by  all  rights  be  classified  simply 
as  a  soap  stock.  The  importation  of  this  oil  into  the  port  of  San 
Francisco  for  1912  was  2,077  gallons,  valued  at  $1,871.  This,  how- 
ever, may  include  some  pharmaceutical  castor  oil,  but  we  think  the 
bulk  of  the  importation  was  represented  by  a  sample  shipment  sent 
here  by  people  in  the  Orient,  who  were  unaware  of  the  heavy  duty  of 
35  cents  per  gallon  now  imposed. 

With  regard  to  codfish  oil,  we  beg  to  draw  to  your  attention  the 
fact  that  ordinary  fish  oil  (not  American  caught)  bears  a  duty  of 
8  cents  per  gallon,  but  owing  to  the  fact  that  codfish  oil  sometimes 
bears  a  trace  of  the  cod-liver  oil  it  is  subjected  to  a  duty  of  15  cents 
per  gallon.  Now  it  is  almost  impossible  when  extracting  this  oil  to 
have  all  the  livers  eliminated,  and  we  would  like  to  have  this  oil  take 
the  fish-oil  rate  of  duty  oven  if  it  should  contain  cod-liver  oil  as  it  is 
absolutely  unfit  for  the  purpose  of  making  pharmaceutical  cod- 
liver  oil,  and  this  is  what  the  duty  of  15  cents  per  gallon  is  to  protect. 
Furthermore,  we  would  suggest  that  all  fish  oils,  whether  seal,  whale, 
sperm,  or  other  fish  oils  be  placed  on  the  free  list  as  they  are  suitable 
only  for  the  manufacturers  of  soap  or  lubricating  oils,  and  would  in 
this  way  cheapen  the  eost  of  raw  materials  for  our  manufacturers 
of  these1  products,  enabling  them  to  compete  better  with  the  foreign- 
made  goods. 

Rapeseed  oil. — This  oil  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  gallon, 
but  we  respectfully  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  same 
is  only  used  for  the  making  of  lubricating  oils  and  does  not  compete 
with  any  American-made  oil.  It  is  one  of  the  few  oils  which  can  be 
"blown,"  and  is  almost  indispensable  to  manufacturers  of  lubricating 
oils.  We  therefore  think  that  it  is  a  fit  oil  to  go  on  the  free  list. 

Hempseed  oil.-  -We  would  also  suggest  this  for  the  free  list  as  well 
as  sod  oil.  both  of  which  are  only  used  for  manufacturing  purposes, 
the  former  of  which  bears  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  gallon  and  the  latter 
a  duty  of  S  cents  per  gallon. 

A\  e  herewith  beg  to  give  you  the  figures  for  the  San  Francisco 
customhouse  for  the  vear  1912: 


SCHEDULE   A.  259 

PARAGRAPH  35— LINSEED  OIL. 


Oils. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Rapeseed  oil              

Gallons. 
35,  748 

$15,  715 

Castor  oil      

2,077 

1,871 

Whale  oil                         

10,000 

2,756 

6,207 

1,929 

Degras  or  wool  grease  

349,265 

8,149 

Trusting  that  all  these  facts  will  be  taken  into  consideration  by 
the  honorable  committee  above  mentioned,   and  thanking  you  for 
the  interest  you  have  taken  in  the  matter,  we  remain, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

S.  L.  JONES  &  Co., 

W.  C.  DUNCAN,  Vice  President. 

Addenda. — Referring  again  to  perilla  oil,  we  would  also  beg  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  nut  oils,  except  those  especially  pro- 
vided for,  are  free  of  duty,  and  according  to  all  authorities  we  have 
consulted  perilla  is  classified  as  a  nut,  and  therefore  should  by  rights 
come  into  the  United  States  on  the  free  list ;  but  disputes  have  arisen, 
and  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  has  been  levied  on  certain  importations. 
We  therefore  strongly  suggest  that  perilla  oil  should  be  added  to  the 
list  of  oils  free  of  duty. 

This  oil  has  been  used  for  centuries  by  the  oriental  lacquer  makers 
and  is  a  very  important  oil  in  the  making  of  lacquers,  and  there  is 
no  oil  in  the  United  States  which  can  entirely  take  its  place.  It  is 
therefore  essentially  a  fit  oil  to  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 

Another  oil  which  we  would  also  suggest  as  applicable  to  be  placed 
on  the  free  list  is  stillingia  or  tallow-seed  oil,  which  is  a  drying  oil 
shipped  from  China,  and  which,  owing  to  its  not  being  mentioned  in 
the  tariff,  would  be  assessed  a  duty  of  25  per  cent ;  but  had  the  framers 
of  the  present  tariff  had  this  oil  brought  before  them  they  would  have 
undoubtedly  placed  it  on  the  free  list. 

PARAGRAPH  34. 

Cod-liver  oil,  fifteen  cents  per  gallon. 

PARAGRAPH  35. 

Flaxseed,  linseed,  and  poppy-seed  oil,  raw,  boiled,  or  oxidized,  fifteen 
cents  per  gallon  of  seven  and  one-half  pounds  weight. 

LINSEED  OIL. 

COMMUNICATION  SUBMITTED  BY  SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS, 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 

SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS, 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  January  4,  1913. 
Mr.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Wo  respectfully  request  that  the  following  communica- 
tion be  made  a  part  of  the  hearings  of  your  committee  of  the  proposed 
changes  in  the  chemical  schedule  and  the  agricultural  schedule  of  the 
present  tariff: 


260  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGBAPH  35— LINSEED  OIL, 
LINSEED   OIL   AND    LINSEED    (FLAXSEED). 

There  are  five  points  we  wish  to  make : 

(1)  Trust. — Although  stated  to  be  so  by  at  least  one  Member  of 
Congress,  there  is  no  '"trust"  in  the  linseed-oil  business.     The  Ameri- 
can Linseed  Co.  probably  handles  about  one-third  of  the  business  in 
this  country,  which  is  conducted  upon  a  very  competitive  basis. 

(2)  Profits. — These  have  not  been  large  in  this  line;  in  fact,  quite 
the  contrary,   as  shown  by  the  published  reports  of  the  above- 
mentioned  company,  showing  that  they  have  not  paid  a  dividend 
since  1900,  and  since  then  have  only  accumulated  a  surplus  of  $768,000, 
showing  a  loss  during  their  last  fiscal  year  of  $478,000. 

(3)  Tariff  on  linseed  and  linseed  oil  should  be  adjusted  at  the  same 
time  and  upon  the  same  basis,  for  the  one  is  the  raw  material  of  the 
other.     One  cent  per  gallon  change  in  oil  is  equal  to  1\  cents  per 
bushel  change  in  seed. 

(4)  Drawback. — We  urge  the  retention  of  the  drawback  system, 
for  it  allows  us  at  certain  times  to  import  foreign  seed,  and  to  sell 
abroad  both  oil  and  oilcake  made  from  this  seed. 

(5)  Present  duty  on  linseed  should  be  maintained  (consequently, 
the  present  duty  on  oil)  for  the  purpose  of  giving  all  possible  encour- 
agement to  our  farmers  to  raise  this  crop.     The  paint  trade,  varnish 
maker,  linoleum  manufacturers  and  other  interests  affected,  as  well 
as  the  linseed-oil  crushers,  have  during  the  past  few  years  annually 
raised  a  fund  of  thousands  of  dollars  to  educate  and  to  encourage  our 
farmers  to  make  a  success  of  this  crop. 

Last  year  and  the  year  before,  owing  to  the  poor  linseed  crops  in 
this  country,  linseed  oil  was  imported  in  large  quantities,  and  the  duty 
of  15  cents  per  gallon  paid,  showing  conclusively  that  at  such  times 
the  business  is  on  a  competitive  basis  with  European  mills,  and  that 
our  farmers,  because  of  the  duty  of  25  cents  per  bushel  receive  a 
higher  price  for  their  linseed  to  compensate  for  the  smaller  yield  per 
acre. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

SPENCER  KELLOGG  &  SONS  (!NC.), 
HOWARD  KELLOGG,  Treasurer. 

BRIEF    OF    WILLIAM    GOODRICH    &    CO.,    MILWAUKEE,    WIS. 

MILWAUKEE,  Wis.,  January  4,  1913. 
Representative  FXPERWOOD. 

Chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAK  SIR:  We  understand  that  the  question  of  reducing  or  chang- 
ing the  present  duty  of  15  eents  per  gallon  on  linseed  oil  will  come  up 
for  discussion  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  under  the 
chemical  and  oil  schedule  on  Monday  the  6th  inst. 

In  the  interest  of  the  Unseed  crushing  industry  and  of  the  flaxseed 
or  linseed  industry  as  a  whole,  we  beg  to  enter  an  earnest  protest 
against  any  further  reduction  in  the  duty  on  foreign-pressed  linseed 


SCHEDULE   A.  261 

PARAGRAPH  35-LINSEED  OIL. 

oil.  At  the  present  time  both  chiua-wood  oil  and  soya-bean  oil  are 
admitted  free  of  duty,  and  both  are  competitors  of  linseed  oil.  Under 
the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  the  duty  on  linseed  oil  was  reduced  25  per 
cent,  and  now  stands  at  15  cents  per  gallon.  The  removal  of  this 
duty  would,  we  think,  permit  the  importation  of  foreign  oil  at  all 
times  and  necessitate  a  heavy  reduction  in  the  price  of  domestic 
flaxseed. 

Owing  to  a  gradual  reduction  hi  the  area  devoted  to  flaxseed  and 
the  consequent  curtailment  of  the  crop  the  linseed  crushers  and  paint 
manufacturers  of  this  country  have  for  some  years  been  contributing 
generously  to  an  educational  fund  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  the 
growing  of  the  flaxseed  and  of  educating  the  farmer  in  the  proper 
treatment  of  the  soil  and  on  the  sowing  of  the  seed.  Our  efforts  have 
met  with  considerable  success,  and  this  year  for  the  first  time  in  several 
years  we  have  raised  a  crop  sufficient  for  the  country's  needs  and  one 
that  has  been  profitable  and  satisfactory  to  the  grower.  Now,  if 
through  the  removal  of  the  protection  given  to  Unseed  oil  the  price  of 
seed  is  forced  to  considerably  lower  levels,  the  farmer,  we  believe, 
will  not  find  it  profitable  to  sow  flax,  and  in  consequence  the  linseed-oil 
industry  of  this  country  (which  at  present  represents  a  business  of 
sixty  to  seventy-five  millions  annually)  would  be  very  seriously  crip- 
pled, if  not  entirely  ruined.  We  would  draw  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  duty  on  oil  is  in  no  sense  a  bonus  to  the  crusher.  There 
is  widespread  competition  and  over  providing  capacity  sufficient  to 
keep  a  considerable  number  of  presses  idle  all  the  time.  Aside  from 
the  benefit  to  the  grower  the  duty  on  oil  only  serves  to  equalize  the 
values  as  between  this  country  and  Europe. 

In  this  country  the  oil  is  the  principal  product  and  the  oil  cake  the 
by-product,  while  abroad  the  reverse  is  the  case,  the  value  of  oil  cake 
abroad  being  nearly  twice  that  of  the  oil  cake  in  this  country.  Under 
these  conditions  we  can  not  compete  with  the  European  manufac- 
turers of  linseed  oil  without  protection.  The  present  duty  on  linseed 
oil  is  only  just  sufficient  to  meet  these  conditions,  and  in  consequence 
we  believe  that  any  reduction  of  the  present  duty  would  be  a  serious 
menace  to  the  life  of  the  industry  in  this  country,  if  not,  indeed,  its 
complete  undoing. 

As  we  can  see  no  commensurate  gain  to  any  class  of  Americans  by 
lowering  or  removing  the  duty,  we  earnestly  pray  your  committee  to 
recommend  the  same  for  retention. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

WM.  O.  GOODRICH, 
Chairman  Linseed  Oil  Committee, 
National  Paint,  Oil,  and  Varnish  Association. 

PARAGRAPH  36. 

Fusel  oil,  or  amylic  alcohol,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH  37. 

Hemp-seed  oil,  ten  cents  per  gallon;  rape-seed  oil,  ten  cents  per  gallon. 
See  S.  L.  Jones  &  Co.,  page  258. 


262  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

PARAGRAPH  38. 

Olive  oil,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  forty  cents  per  gallon; 
in  bottles,  jars,  kegs,  tins,  or  other  packages,  containing  less  than  five  gallons 
each,  fifty  cents  per  gallon. 

See  Park  &  Tilford,  page  67;  F.  S.  Bright,  page  267;  Antonio  Zucca,  page  274; 
C.  A.  Mariana,  page  278;  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  105;  La  Manna, 
Azema  &  Farnan,  page  286. 

OLIVE  OIL. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  I.  J.  HUFF,  OF  IOS  ANGELES,  CAI.,  ON  THE 
SUBJECT  OF  OLIVE  OIL. 

Dr.  HUFF.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  been  delegated  by 
the  olive  growers,  nurserymen,  and  olive-oil  manufacturers  of  Cali- 
fornia to  appear  before  you  representing  their  interests  in  the  matter 
of  a  proposed  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  olive  oil  of  20  cents  per  gallon. 
We  request  that  this  duty  be  allowed  to  remain,  as  it  is  for  the  best 
interests  of  those  concerned;  and  we  believe  that  after  you  have 
thoroughly  examined  our  statement  and  investigated  our  conditions 
you  will  agree  that  to  preserve  that  industry  the  duty  must  be  left 
intact. 

The  proposed  reduction  of  20  cents  a  gallon,  as  far  as  we  can  see, 
will  in  no  way  reduce  the  cost  of  olive  oil  to  the  consumer  for  this 
reason:  Ninety  per  cent  of  the  olive  oil  sold  to  the  consumer  in  the 
United  States  is  sold  in  bottles  and  small  cans  called  sixes  (6  to  the 
gallon)  and  contain  20  ounces  of  oil  each.  The  average  selling  price 
in  the  United  States  is  80  cents  per  can  or  bottle.  A  reduction  of  20 
cents  per  gallon  would  be  3J  cents  per  bottle.  It  is  very  obvious  that 
the  retailer  would  not  sell  at  75  cents  and  lose  1J  cents  per  bottle  of 
his  profit,  which  profit  is  small  enough  at  the  present  time.  Neither 
would  lie  make  a  76§  cents  price. 

We  claim  that  the  proposed  reduction  on  an  average  annual  import 
of  4,000,000  gallons,  or  8800,000,  would  go  to  the  importer  alone, 
and  the  Government  would  lose  this  revenue  and  not  help  the  con- 
sumer, and  work  a  very  serious  hardship  on  the  olive-oil  industry  of 
California.  Twenty  cents  a  gallon  reduction  on  4,000,000  gallons 
would  be  a  line  plum  for  the  importer  and  absolutely  no  benefit 
for  the  consumer.  The  importer's  argument  has  been  that  a  20-cent 
reduction  would  increase  the  sale  and  thereby  increase  the  revenue. 
If  j'oii  will  follow  the  European  markets  you  will  find  that  all  of  the 
olive  oil  being  manufactured  is  readily  sold,  and  that  each  year  the 
supply  is  far  below  the  demand,  and  especially  so  on  the  better  grades 
of  oil  which  come  in  competition  with  the  California  products. 

There  was  imported  in  the  United  States  during  the  year  ending 
June  30, 1912,  3,050,322.06  gallons  of  olive  oil,  valued  at  $4,335,294.25, 
on  which  a  duty  of  §1.525,101 .58  was  paid,  a  value  of  $1.42  per  gallon. 
Tliis  was  in  packages  containing  less  than  five  gallons.  There  was 
also  imported  1,700,023.07  gallons,  valued  at  $1,729,491,  on  which 
a  duty  of  S6S3.WW.44  was  paid,  a  value  of  $1.01  per  gallon.  This 
was  in  packages  larger  than  five  gallons.  There  was  also  702,565 
gallons  of  denaturized  oil,  on  which  no  duty  was  paid. 

In  1!)()S  we  were  represented  here  before  the  Wavs  and  Means 
Commit  tee.  and  at  that  time  we  asked  that  the  dutv  be  retained  on 


SCHEDULE    A.  263 

PABAGBAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

olives  and  olive  oil,  and  it  was.  Note  the  result  in  four  years:  With 
the  very  small  protection  we  have  had  we  added  6,000  acres  more 
olives,  and  of  the  12,000  acres  then  growing  and  50  per  cent  bearing — 
3,000  acres  of  these  have  come  into  bearing — and  we  have  planted 
6,000  acres  more,  making  at  the  present  time  a  total  acreage  in  the 
State  of  18,000  acres,  from  which  we  are  securing  at  the  present  time 
8,000  tons  for  oil  and  4,000  tons  for  pickles,  a  total  of  12,000  tons. 
Four  years  ago  the  average  net  income  was  only  $17  an  acre.  This 
year  the  average  net  income  is  $36.88  an  acre — not  a  very  large 
income,  but  still  it  shows  what  we  can  do  with  protection  to  this 
industry,  and  all  of  this  would  be  lost  if  the  duty  on  olive  oil  were 
removed.  In  1908  the  olive  industry  of  California  represented 
$4,500,000.  To-day  it  represents  over  $7,500,000.  There  is  in 
California  to-day  375,000  acres  available  for  olive  trees,  and,  with 
proper  protection,  the  time  will  come  when  we  can  nearly  supply  our 
own  country  with  oil  and  olives. 

The  total  coM  of  harvesting  and  delivering  olives  in  Europe  to  the 
factories  rarely  exceeds  $7  per  ton,  while  our  cost  is  seldom  under  $20 
per  ton. 

The  average  cost  of  California  olive  oil  in  the  tanks  is  $1.85  per 
gallon,  and  the  average  selling  price  is  $2  per  gallon,  giving  the 
manufacturer  a  profit  of  15  cents  a  gallon. 

We  use  only  the  best  sanitary  mechanical  methods  for  extracting 
oil,  while  in  Europe  a  large  percentage  of  the  oil  is  extracted  in  the 
most  crude  and  filthy  manner  imaginable,  a  large  portion  of  it  being 
done  by  the  orchardist  himself,  and  in  many  instances  with  only  the 
use  of  the  feet  and  hands. 

Labor  is  a  matter  which  enters  largely  into  the  California  product. 
The  entire  labor  pertaining  to  all  the  olive  industry  in  Europe,  in- 
cluding field  laborers,  manufacturing  laborers,  office  help,  etc.,  is 
$1.04  per  day.  In  California,  including  the  same  help  as  mentioned 
above,  it  is  $2.47  per  day. 

Heretofore  the  by-products  have  been  more  or  less  wasted.  Now 
we  have  started  to  extract  from  the  pomace  the  foots  oil.  This  oil 
is  what  is  termed  mechanical  oil,  used  to  a  large  extent  by  soap  fac- 
tories and  silk  manufacturers,  and  its  extraction  heretofore  has  been 
done  only  in  foreign  countries. 

Another  serious  handicap  that  we  have  is  the  matter  of  freight. 
Olive  oil  can  be  laid  down  in  New  York  or  Chicago  from  Europe  for 
7£  cents  a  gallon.  It  costs  us  15  cents  a  gallon  to  deliver  it  to  any 
point  from  Denver  east,  and  18  cents  to  20  cents  a  gallon  to  deliver 
it  from  California  to  what  is  known  as  the  Northwest ;  that  is,  through 
Montana  and  Idaho. 

I  have  a  detailed  schedule  here,  which  I  will  ask  to  have  made  a 
part  of  my  statement. 

The  schedule  referred  to  by  Dr.  Huff  is  as  follows : 

Average  land  value  per  acre,  9,000  acres  of  bearing  olive  trees  all  varieties,  $250. 
Low  value  here  caused  by  mountain  and  low  land  with  orchards  not  cultivated  or 
properly  taken  care  of. 

Average  land  value  per  acre,  9,000  acres  growing  but  not  bearing,  $325.  Higher 
value  of  land  caused  by  quality  of  soil,  higher  state  of  cultivation  with  water  facilities. 

Average  yield  of  olives  per  acre  in  California,  1£  tons.  Low  average  yield  is  brought 
about  by  approximately  3,000  acres  bearing,  but  not  yet  under  full  state  of  cultivation. 


264 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PABAGBAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Average  price  received  by  grower  for  three  years,  1909-1912,  9,000  acres,  oil  olives 
on  trees,  $22  per  ton.  . 

Average  cost  irrigation,  cultivation,  fertilization,  and  pruning,  18,000  acres  bearing 
and  notbearing,  $8.50  per  acre.  Low  average  caused  by  large  amount  of  early  planted 
acreage  not  being  cultivated  or  irrigated. 

Net  average  receipts  to  grower  per  ton  for  oil  olives,  $13.50. 

Average' price  received  by  grower,  1909  to  1912,  for  pickling  olives  on  trees,  $62 
per  ton.  Forty  per  cent  of  all  olives  produced  in  State  are  pickling  olives,  balance 
oil  olives. 

Net  average  receipts  by  grower  for  pickling  olives,  $53.50  per  ton. 

Net  average  receipts  by  grower  for  both  oil  and  pickles  per  acre,  $36.88. 

Average  cost  of  picking,  9,000  acres,  $17.50  per  ton. 

Average  cost  shipping  expense  per  ton,  $3.50. 

Net  amount  paid  to  grower  for  approximately  12,000  tons  produced  in  1911,  $442,560. 
Of  this  tonnage,  4,000  tons  were  pickles  representing  1,200,000  gallons  and  8,000  tons 
of  oil  olives  representing  280,000  gallons  of  oil. 

Average  cost  of  manufacturing  olive  oil  for  past  three  seasons  including  cost  of  fruit, 
manufacturing  (not  including  selling  expense  or  other  expense  pertaining  thereto), 
$1.85  per  gallon.  Based  on  annual  output  of  five  largest  factories,  90,000  gallons  per 

Average  cost  of  curing  and  canning  ripe  olives  including  cost  of  fruit  (not  including 
selling  expense  or  other  expense  pertaining  thereto),  $0.617  per  gallon.  Based  on 
annual  output  of  five  largest  factories,  409,998  gallons. 

Average  paid  for  labor  field  work  including  farm  help  and  olive  pickers,  $2.17  per 
day. 

Average  paid  for  manufacturing  including  packing,  shipping,  selling,  operating 
and  office  help,  $2.76  per  day. 

Average  paid  for  European  labor,  including  field  labor,  where  any  paid,  manufactur- 
ing plants  and  shipping  stations,  $1.04  per  day.  Covers,  Italy,  France,  and  Spain, 
approximately  400  orchards  and  30  mills.  Average  labor  in  Greece  is  84  cents  per  day. 

Average  cost  of  manufacturing  California  olive  oil  for  past  three  seasons  (1909,  1910, 1911). 

[Five  factories.) 


Cost  of  oil 
fruit  de- 
livered to 
factory,  per 
ton. 

Average 
yield  of  oil 
per  ton, 
gallons. 

Average 
cost  of  fruit 
per  gallon 
of  oil 
pressed. 

Manufac- 
turing, 
expense, 
labor,  ma- 
terial, etc. 

Taxes. 

Repairs. 

Season  1909 

S46.  10 

34  4 

$1  342 

$0  3858 

$0.0091 

$0.02 

Season  1910  

45.57 

37.0 

1.231 

.256 

.014 

.05 

Season  1911  . 

45.00 

34  0 

1  3°3 

269 

009 

.048 

Total 

13G  73 

105  4 

3  8% 

9108 

0321 

.118 

Average  for  last  :•>  seasons  

45.58 

35.13 

1.299 

.3036 

.0107 

.0393 

Interest. 

Insurance. 

General  ex- 
penses. 

Other 
miscella- 
neous ex- 
penses. 

Total  cost, 
Eer  gallon, 
ulk  oil  in 
tanks. 

Gallons 
manufac- 
tured. 

Season  19n'.i 

SO  0558 

so  0248 

SO  0760 

SO  Oil 

$1  9245 

75  000 

Season  I91n.  .            ... 

.  (KH 

039 

185 

012 

1  848 

85  000 

Season  1911 

04 

015 

07 

1  779 

110  000 

Total  

.  156X 
0523 

.  07SS 

.  3310 

.028 

5.  5515 

270.  000 

SCHEDULE   A. 
PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 


265 


Average  cost  of  pickling  and  canning  California  ripe  olives  for  past  three  seasons  (1909, 

1910,  and  1911). 

[Per  quart  case  of  2  dozen.] 


Cost  of  - 
fruit  de- 
livered, at 
factory. 

Manufac- 
turing ex- 
pense,labor, 
material, 
etc. 

Taxes. 

Repairs. 

Interest. 

Insurance. 

Season  1909  

$1.570 

$1.312 

$0.0224 

$0.0493 

$0.137 

$0.0612 

Season  1910  

1.586 

1.494 

.041 

.084 

.171 

.109 

Season  1911  

2.059 

1.242 

.022 

.044 

.098 

.037 

Total  

5.215 

4.048 

.0854 

.1773 

.406 

.2072 

Average   per   year    for   last 
three  seasons  (24  qt.  cans).  . 
Per  gallon  (4)  

1.738 
.289 

1.349 
.225 

.0285 
.0047 

.0591 
.OC9S 

.135 
.0225 

.0691 
.0115 

General 
expenses. 

Other  mis- 
cellaneous 
expenses. 

Total  cost 
per  case. 

Cases 
packed. 

Total  pack 
five  facto- 
ries, cases. 

Season  1909         

$0.187 

SO.  0271 

$3.366 

36,129 

75,000 

Season  1910  

.311 

.0159 

3.  955 

21,578 

50,000 

Season  191  1  ..         

.171 

.115 

3.788 

41,701 

80,000 

Total  

.CC9 

.1580 

11.109 

99,408 

205  000 

Average  per  year  for  last  th 
(24  qt.  cans)     

ree  seasons 

.223 

.053 

3.703 

33,136 

68,333 

Per  gallon  (4)  

.037 

.009 

.617 

1  198,816 

1  409,998 

1  In  gallons. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  It  has  been  frequently  stated  before  this  commit- 
tee that  California  produces  about  5  per  cent  of  the  olive  oil  con- 
sumed in  the  United  States.  If  that  is  so,  you  want  a  tax  on  the  other 
nineteen-twentieths  of  the  olive  oil  to  protect  that  5  per  cent  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  We  claim  that  if  the  tax  which  is  now  upon  olive  oil 
were  removed  that  it  would  not  affect  the  consumer  at  all. 

Mr.  HARBISON.  Is  not  this  an  endeavor  on  the  part  of  these  small 
producers  in  California  to  make  the  people  in  the  East  pay  their 
freight  rates,  through,  the  tariff? 

Dr.  HUFF.  I  do  not  think  it  is.  I  think  it  is  an  endeavor  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  California  to  build  up  a  business  that  is  young 
and  has  shown  that  it  can  be  built  up. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  At  the  expense  of  the  rest  of  the  United  States  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  I  do  not  see  how  the  expense  would  figure,  because  I 
do  not  think  the  consumer  could  get  his  oil  for  any  less. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  California  produces  about  10  per  cent  of  the  con- 
sumption in  this  country,  instead  of  5  per  cent. 

Dr.  HUFF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  How  much  has  your  investment  in  the  olive  busi- 
ness increased  since  the  Payne  law  was  enacted  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  From  four  and  a  half  to  seven  and  a  half  million  dollars. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  there  enough  land  in  the  States  of  California 
and  Arizona  to  produce  ultimately  enough  olives  and  olive  oil  to 
meet  the  home  demand  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  I  think  there  is. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Has  the  price  of  olives  gone  up  in  recent  years,  or 
tho  price  of  olive  oil  ( 


266  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Dr.  HUFF.  The  price  of  olive  oil? 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Yes. 

Dr.  HUFF.  No;  the  price  of  olive  oil  remains  about  the  same,  but 
the  prices  of  the  manufactures  of  olives  has  gone  up,  and  thereby 
benefited  the  grower. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  market  price  of  olive  oil  in  bottles 
now? 

Dr.  HUFF.  On  the  20-ounce  basis,  about  80  cents. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  market  price  per  gallon  of  the  other 
olive  oil  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Which  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  tariff  divides  the  importations  into  two  differ- 
ent classes.  How  is  it  imported  otherwise  than  in  bottles  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Well,  in  packages  of  5  gallons  or  under,  and  also  over 
that  in  casks  and  barrels. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  market  price  per  gallon  of  that  oil? 

Dr.  HUFF.  I  presume  it  is  the  same  as  the  other.  It  is  the  oil 
that  is  brought  in  here  to  be  bottled. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  unit  of 
value  of  the  two  in  the  Treasury  report. 

Dr.  HUFF.  From  $1.01  to  $1.42  per  gallon — a  difference  in  the  duty. 

Mr.  HILL.  Dr.  Huff,  do  you  know  any  reason  why  cottonseed  oil 
should  be  on  the  free  list  and  olive  oil  not  on  the  free  list  ?  They  are 
both  a  food  product. 

Dr.  HUFF.  Xo;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  Would  you  approve  a  general  policy  which  would  make 
the  duty  large  enough  to  pay  transportation  and  prevent  competi- 
tion in  any  part  of  the  United  States  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Xo. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  would  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  why  do  you  ask  a  duty  here  that  will  enable  you 
to  control  the  market  on  the  Atlantic  coast  in  olive  oil? 

Dr.  HUFF.  We  do  not  ask  a  duty  to  enable  us  to  control  the 
market.  We  ask  a  duty  to  protect  a  voung  industry. 

Mr.  HILL.  Will  it  ever  get  to  be  old  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Yes;  as  time  goes  on. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  a  food  product  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  It  enters  largely  into  food. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  a  wise  policy  to  have  food 
products  free  in  this  country  >.  Would  you  justify  a  duty  of  25  cents 
a  bushel  on  wheat  and  10  cents  on  corn,  and  things  of  that  kind  that 
enter  into  the  daily  living  of  the  American  people "? 

Dr.  HUFF.  I  do  not  think  olive  oil  enters  into  the  daily  living  of 
the  American  people. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  think  it  enters  into  a  very  large  proportion  of  the 
daily  living  Of  the  people  of  the  Atlantic  coast.  The  foreign  popu- 
lation there  is  very  large.  Would  you  be  in  favor  of  putting  a  cor- 
responding duty  on  meat? 

Dr.  HUFF.  Xo;  I  would  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  not  on  meat  as  well  as  on  olive  oil? 

Dr.  HUFF.   Bemuse,  meat  is  more  generally  used  than  olive  oil. 


SCHEDULE   A.  267 

PARAGRAPH  38     OLIVE  OIL. 

Mr.  HILL.  Would  you  011  any  food  product  other  than  things  which 
are  produced  in  California  ?  Would  you  favor,  for  example,  the  appli- 
cation which  was  made  here  three  years  ago  to  increase  the  duty  on 
peanuts  15  cents  a  bushel  or  from  a  half  of  a  cent  a  pound  to  two 
cents  a  pound  in  order  to  give  the  peanut  growers  of  the  Atlantic  coast 
a  virtual  control  over  the  San  Francisco  market  ?  Would  you  think 
that  a  wise  policy  ? 

Dr.  HUFF.  No ;  I  would  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  do  not  believe  you  would,  and  I  do  not  approve  of  it 
with  regard  to  olive  oil. 

STATEMENT  OF  F.  S.  BRIGHT,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE   POMPEIAN 
CO.,   OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee.  I  rep- 
resent the  Pompeian  Co.,  whose  sole  business  is  the  importation  of 
olive  oil  in  bulk  for  redistribution  in  packages. 

The  Pompeian  Co.'s  plant  is  located  in  the  city  of  Washington,  and 
this  is  probably  the  only  subject  that  will  come  before  your  committee 
which  can  be  seen  right  here.  It  is  situated  on  Thirteenth  Street  SW., 
next  to  the  Bureau  of  Chemistry,  and  my  clients  chose  that  location 
in  order  that  they  might  be  subject  to  the  most  searching  super- 
vision as  to  the  quality  of  their  product. 

I  shall  address  myself  only  to  the  subject  of  olive  oil,  section  38 
of  the  Payne  bill,  and  the  latter  part  of  section  50  of  H.  R.  20182.   In 
the  Payne  bill  "  olive  oil  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section" 
pays   40   cents  per  gallon;    "in  bottles,   jars,  kegs,  tins,  or  other 
packages  containing  less  than  5  gallons  each,  50  cents  per  gallon." 
In  H.  R.  20182  it  is  provided- 
Olive  oil,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act  or  in  the  act  cited  for  amendment, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  olive  oil,  in  bottles,  jars,  kegs  or  other  packages  con- 
taining less  than  five  gallons  each,  thirty  cents  per  gallon. 

My  clients  are  interested  in  not  having  the  duty  on  their  raw 
material  placed  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  but  think  that  if  an  ad  valorem 
duty  is  to  be  placed  it  should  be  put  at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The 
reason  for  the  imposition  of  the  specific  duty  on  the  oil  in  bulk,  rather 
than  the  ad  valorem  duty,  is  the  constant  fluctuation  in  the  price 
of  olive  oil  which  is  imported  at  the  present  time.  The  price  runs 
well  toward  $1.30  per  gallon  on  the  other  side  now.  It  has  increased, 
as  I  will  show  you  in  a  few  minutes,  well  on  to  80  per  cent  in  the  last 
five  years.  That  is  the  first  reason  for  a  specific  duty,  because  you 
can  better  estimate,  writh  a  specific  duty,  what  the  revenue  will  be 
and  you  can  further  induce  the  importer  to  bring  in  the  highest  grade 
of  olive  oil,  if  you  pay  the  specific  duty,  rather  than  an  ad  valorem 
duty.  You  further  protect  your  revenue  by  the  fact  that  the  oil, 
when  it  bears  a  specific  duty,  needs  only  to  be  measured ;  it  requires 
no  appraisement,  and  with  the  variations  in  the  prices  abroad  ,•  an 
ad  valorem  duty  may  lead  to  difficulty  in  appraisement. 

We  are  in  no  wray  interested  in  the  importation  of  olives  as  a  food, 
but  only  in  the  olive  oil  itself.  The  existing  difference  of  10  cents 
per  gallon  between  oil  in  bulk  and  oil  in  jars  and  bottles  is  changed 


268  TABIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  38-OLIVE  OIL. 

in  the  proposed  bill,  by  my  present  figures,  to  only  4  cents  per 
gallon;  that  is,  it  comes  in  in  bottles,  under  the  bill,  at  30 
cents  per  gallon,  while  at  a  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  rate, 
on  the  basis  of  cost  of  $1.30  a  gallon  on  the  other  side,  the  bulk 
product  would  pay  26  cents  a  gallon.  My  client  is  interested  in  the 
preservation  of  as  wide  a  differential  between  the  olive  oil  in  bulk 
and  olive  oil  in  packages  as  it  is  fair  should  be  maintained. 

In  this  connection  I  desire  to  present  to  the  committee  a  very 
brief  compilation  of  the  duty  on  olive  oil  in  Canada,  France,  Ger- 
many, Mexico,  Spain,  Italy,  and  Greece,  giving  to  you  both  the  pro- 
ducing countries  and  the  distributing  countries.  These  statistics  are 
prepared  by  the  Division  of  Foreign  Tariffs  of  the  Bureau  of  Foreign 
and  Domestic  Commerce,  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor, 
and  I  thought  they  would  be  of  convenience  to  the  committee.  It 
shows  the  present  duty  in  Canada,  a  nonproducing  country,  of  15 
per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  present  duty  in  Germany,  a  nonproducing 
country,  is  not  quite  8  cents  a  gallon.  That  is  on  the  bulk.  In 
Germany  the  difference  between  the  oil  in  bulk  and  the  oil  in  jars 
and  receptacles,  ready  for  distribution,  is  2  to  1;  in  Greece  the  dif- 
ference is  3  to  1 . 

We  think  it  is  fair  that  the  duty  should  be  less  in  the  United  States. 
I  would  say  as  a  fair  proposition  that  the  duty  on  the  oil  should  be 
placed  at  a  specific  duty  of  20  cents  a  gallon,  which  would  be  a  present 
ad  valorem  duty  of  about  15  per  cent.  The  specific  duty  on  the 
finished  product  is  30  cents  per  gallon,  as  provided  in  the  bill.  We 
think  that  we  have  some  justification  in  talking  to  you  because  in 
the  year  just  concluded  the  Pompeian  Co.  imported  and  packed  not 
quite  half  a  million  gallons  of  olive  oil,  and  we  think  the  duty  on  the 
finished  product  should  be  40  cents  per  gallon. 

I  have  here  the  statistics  of  growth  in  the  importations  of  olive  oil 
in  the  last  few  years,  from  1907  to  1911,  compiled  by  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics.  They  arc  left  from  the  brief,  and  I  will  ask  to  incorporate 
them  in  the  record. 

These  show  that  the  price  is  rising  much  more  rapidly  than  the 
quantity  imported.  I  do  not  think  anybody  can  honestly  promise  a 
continuance  of  the  present  prices,  even  if  the  duty  is  reduced  as  pro- 
posed by  this  bill,  because  the  demand  all  over  the  world  is  growing 
enormously,  and  the  length  of  time  that  is  required  to  bring  an  olive 
grove  into  bearing  is  such  that  we  can  not  foresee  any  very  great  in- 
crease in  the  production  of  olive  oil  in  the  immediate  future" 

Congress  has  at  all  times  recognized  this  difference  in  the  duty  be- 
tween the  bulk  and  package,  and  still  continues  to  recognize  it  in  the 
pending  House  bill. 

There  is  another  phase  of  this  question  which  I  wish  to  bring  to  your 
attention,  and  that  is  of  the  500,000  gallons  imported  by  the  Pompeian 
Co.  in  the  last  year,  half  of  it,  or  250,000  gallons,  were  distributed 
among  the  drug  trade  of  the  United  States.  There  is  a  very  largely 
increasing  use  of  olive  oil  as  a  medicine  and  as  an  emollient,  and  we 
think  that  unless  we  can  get  the  committee  to  help  us  maintain  this 
lower  duty  the  American  people  will  eventually  have  to  pay  a  higher 
price  for  their  olive  oil.  and  that  if  the  duty  is  maintained  as  provided 


SCHEDULE   A.  269 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

in  this  bill,  amended  as  I  have  suggested  it,  the  present  price  of  olive 
oil  can  probably  be  maintained 

I  do  not  want  to  make  an}7  misrepresentations  by  saying  that  the 
price  can  be  materially  reduced  even  if  the  duty  is  reduced,  because 
the  price  of  the  raw  product  seems  to  be  rising  all  over  the  world,  and 
has  steadily  progressed  in  the  last  five  years. 

I  do  not" know  that  it  is  necessary  to  take  the  time  of  the  commit- 
tee to  discuss  the  California  situation,  but  if  my  information  is  cor- 
rect, the  entire  product  of  California  is  only  300,000  gallons,  and 
within  the  last  year  the  Pompeian  Co.  has  shipped  30,000  gallons 
into  the  State  of  California,  so  that  the  product  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia is  not  sufficient  for  the  Pacific  coast  region  alone. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  not  that  because  your  oil  is  a  much  cheaper 
grade  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  No;  we  think  our  oil  is  the  best  in  the  world.  We 
pay  the  highest  price  for  it  abroad,  and  we  think  it  is  better  than  the 
California  oil. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  it  not  universally  conceded  that  the  California 
oil  is  the  best  oil  in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Yes,  sir;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  conception  is  cor- 
rect. We  have  spent  a  great  many  thousand  dollars  trying  to  per- 
suade the  American  people  that  a  product  packed  as  our  product  is 
packed,  under  the  most  absolutely  sanitary  conditions  conceivable,  is 
as  good  as  a  product  bearing  a  foreign  label. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  your  product  a  pure  product  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Is  it  not  mixed  with  cottonseed  oil  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Absolutely  not  a  fraction  of  a  tenth  of  1  per  cent  of 
cottonseed  oil.  We  are  next  to  the  Bureau  of  Chemistry,  and  they 
will  tell  you  they  can  discover  a  fraction  of  one-half  of  1  per  cent  of 
cottonseed  oil.  Olive  oil  formerly  was  adulterated  at  Porto  Franco 
and  shipped  into  this  or  any  other  country,  but  our  olive  oil  is  abso- 
lutely pure.  That  is  our  pride. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  You  can  not  get  the  same  price  as  California,  can 
you  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  We  are  not  trying  to  get  the  high  prices.  We  are 
not  aiming  at  the  high  price  California  gets.'  We  are  aiming  to 
make  as  cheap  a  product  as  possible.  That  is  our  purpose.  The 
Pompeian  Co.  handled  last  year,  if  our  figures  are  correct,  five  gal- 
lons for  every  three  gallons  produced  by  the  State  of  California. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Do  you  think  that  if  olive  oil  were  put  on  the  free 
list  it  would  reduce  the  price  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  do  not  really  know  whether  it  would  for  any  very 
long  time. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  Do  you  think  it  would  reduce  it  for  the  present,  for 
the  moment  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  think  probably  it  would. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  How  much  of  the  duty  is  added  to  the  price,  which 
you  add  to  the  price? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  can  not  answer  that  question.  The  supply  varies 
so  it  is  hard  to  tell.  We  keep  our  product  at  a  fixed  price.  We  dis- 


270  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38—  OLIVE  OIL. 

tribute  it  at  wholesale.  The  increased  demand  is  such  that  individu- 
als to  whom  we  distribute  have  been  erasing  the  price  that  is  printed 
on  the  package  and  charging  a  higher  price  for  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  How  do  you  do  that  —  keep  your  price  at  a  fixed  price 
with  a  varying  supply  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  The  company  has  done  it  up  to  this  time. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  there  any  agreement  among  the  dealers  to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  No,  sir.  We  do  not  know  anybody  that  operates  in 
the  olive-oil  business  except  the  foreign  grower  and  the  American 
consumer  whom  we  reach  through  our  distributers. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  must  make  the  price  high  in  the  beginning,  to  cover 
all  the  short  supply,  and  then  keep  it  up  when  the  supply  is  greater. 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  The  time  will  come  whe'n  the  price  will  have  to  be 
changed  if  conditions  are  not  changed  in  the  production  of  olive  oil 
on  the  other  side.  If  we  had  several  years  of  bad  season  in  the  olive- 
growing  countries  the  price  of  olive  oil,  our  price,  would  have  to  be 
put  up.  But  we  have  been  able  to  maintain  it  largely  because  of  the 
great  quantities  that  we  handle.  We  made  a  great  deal  of  money  to 
begin  with.  We  did  not  make  so  much  per  gallon,  because  the  price 
has  risen  not  quite  80  per  cent  in  the  past  five  years  — 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  What  per  cent  of  the  olive  oil  consumed  in  this 
country  do  you  import  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  The  United  States  imported  last  year,  in  1911, 
altogether  4,400,000  gallons.  We  imported  about  300,000  of  those. 
Last  year  our  business  grew  so  enormously  that  we  imported  500,000 
gallons,  half  a  million  gallons  of  olive  oil. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  There  are  a  great  many  other  competitors  with  you  ? 

Mr.   BRIGHT.  There  is  constant  competition. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  is  it  you  have  all  been  able  to  fix  and  maintain 
this  same  identical  price  for  the  last  four  years  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  We  have  maintained  the  price  ourselves  without  any 
consideration  for  anybody  else.  I  can  not  tell  you  what  the  prices 
are  at  which  other  companies  sell  their  products.  There  are  a  great 
number  of  importers  who  import  and  put  up  the  product.  We  have 
maintained  our  price-  because  it  is  good  business  to  maintain  that 
price.  The  wide  distribution  of  the  product  and  the  wide  adver- 
tisement of  the  product  at  that  price  is  good  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  proportion  of  the  imports  are  in  bulk  as  you 
import  it  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Every  ounce. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  proportion  of  the  total  imports  into  this 
country? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  1  can  not  give  you  those  figures,  but  we  have  at  this 
time  1.200  casks  of  olive  oil  right  hi  the  plant  here  in  Washington 
in  hulk. 

Mr.  PALMKI;.  There  are  other  concerns  in  the  country  engaged  in 
the  same  business  as  you  are? 

Mr.  BRK;HT.    1  think  there  are  other  concerns  that  import  the  bulk 

oil,  but    1   know  of  no  other  concern  that  has  the  same  business  as 

Tluit    is  only  a  part    of  other   businesses.     But  we 

have  no  business  whatever  except    the    importation  of   olive   oil   in 

hulk  and  ils  redistribution  in  packa 


es. 


SCHEDULE  A. 


271 


PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  In  the  process  of  refining  this  olive  oil  what 
materials  are  combined  to  increase  its  volume  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Nothing.  The  olive  oil  that  is  imported  is  placed  in 
the  plant  here,  packed  under  sanitary  conditions  in  tins,  and  dis- 
tributed. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Cottonseed  oil  is  not  combined  with  it  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  Absolutely  not  the  fraction  of  an  ounce.  I  have  said 
that  before.  We  are  immediately  next  door  to  the  Bureau  of  Chem- 
istry and  we  are  subject,  of  course,  to  the  pure  food  and  drug  act. 
Every  bit  of  olive  oil  packed  in  the  United  States  is  subject  to  it. 
We  would  be  liable  to  be  caught  up  immediately  if  we  did  adulterate 
our  product  in  the  slightest  and  called  it  olive  oil. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Is  there  not  a  product  on  record  called  olive 
oil  that  has  in  it  a  combination  of  cottonseed  oil  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  can  not  answer  that  question.  I  do  not  know  of 
any.  But  cottonseed  oil  is  used  very  largely  as  a  food  product,  and 
is  a  very  good  food  product. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  it  true,  as  reported,  that  cottonseed  oil  is  sent 
from  this  country  to  one  of  the  States  of  Italy,  bottled  there,  and 
sent  over  here  as  olive  oil  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  have  heard  of  it,  but  I  can  not  verify  it,  and  under 
the  pure  food  and  drug  law  I  don't  believe  it  possible. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Which  is  the  better  of  the  food  products — olive  oil 
or  cottonseed  oil  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  I  have  never  tasted  cottonseed  oil,  when  I  knew  it, 
and  I  can  not,  therefore,  answer  your  question  from  personal 
knowledge. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  What  is  your  firm  ? 

Mr.  BRIGHT.  The  Pompeian  Co.  You  have  seen  the  advertise- 
ments in  the  street  cars  in  Washington,  and  we  would  be  delighted 
to  have  any  of  you  see  the  plant,  if  you  are  interested  in  seeing  it, 
at  any  time. 

I  thank  you  very  much. 

BUREAU    OF   FOREIGN   AND   DOMESTIC  COMMERCE. 


Tariff 
No. 

British  preferen- 
tial tariff. 

General  tariff. 

262 
278 

Canada: 
Olive  oil  .                                              ail  valorem 

15  per  cent.  . 

20  per  cent. 
Free. 

Do. 

Olive  oil  for  manufacturing  soap,  tobacco,  and  can- 
ning fish,  ad  valorem. 
United  Kingdom: 
Olive  oil  

Free  

General  tariff. 

Minimum  tariff. 

France  (franc,  19.3  cents): 
Ex  110.  Pure  olive  oil— 
For  sonn  making  ("TOO  kilos').     

10  francs  

3  francs. 
10  francs. 

Other  (100  kilos) 

2o  francs  . 

NOTE.— T»te  general  tariff  applies  to  imports  from  the  United  States. 


272  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

BUREAU  OF  FOREIGN  AND  DOMESTIC  COMMERCE— Continued. 


General  tariff.        Conventional  tariff. 


Germany  (marks,  23.8  cents): 

166.  Olive  oil,  pure,  in  casks  (100  kilos) 10  marks Free. 

Pure  olive  oil,  officially  denatured  (100  kilos) 2  marks . 

'     167.  Olive  oil  in  receptacles  other  than  casks  (100  kilos) .....  20  marks 10  marks. 

NOTE. — The  conventional  tariff  applies  to  imports  from  the  United  States. 

Peso. 

Mexico  (peso,  49.8  cents): 

123.  Olive  oil,  in  jars  or  cans per  kilo..  0.17 

124.  Olive  oil,  in  glass  vessels do .22 

NOTE. — There  is  a  surtax  of  5  per  cent  of  the  duty. 

First  tariff.  Second  tariff. 

Spain  (peseta,  19.3  cents): 

644.  Olive  oil  (100  kilos) 40  pesetas 30  pesetas. 

The  second  tariff  applies  to  imports  from  the  United  States. 

General  tariff.       Conventional  tariff. 

Italy  (lira,  19.3  cents): 

7.  Olive  oil  (100  kilos) 15  lire . 

Greece  (drachma,  gold,  19.3  cents:  oko,  2.8  pounds): 

42.  Olive  oil  in  bottles  or  other  vessels,  except  barrels,  skins, 

and  the  like j  per  100  okos 100  drachmas. 

Olive  oil  in  barrels,  skins,  and  the  like do 30  drachmas. 


XOTE. — The  fluty  is  payable  in  paper  drachmas  at  the  rate  of  1.4")  drachmas  paper  to  1  drachma  gold. 
The  value  of  the  paper  drachma  is  now  practically  equal  to  that  of  the  gold  drachma,  and  the  actual  duty, 
therefore,  amounts  to  145  per  cent  of  the  rates  given  above. 

[The  Roesslor  &  Hasslacher  Chemical  Co.,  100  William  Street,  New  York.] 

Imports  of  merchandise — years  ending  June  30.  1907-1911. 
OIJVK  01!,,  KXCKPT  FOR  MANUFACTURING  OR  MECHANICAL  PURPOSES  (DUTIABLE). 


Imported  from — 


Europe: 

Austria-Hungary 

Azores,  and  Madeira  Islands 

Belgium 

France 

Gorman  v 

Gibraltar... 


Grr 


Italy 

Malta,  Go7.o,  etc 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

Turkey  in  Kun>|><'. . 
United  Kingdom    - 

England. 

Scotland 

Ireland 

North  America: 

Canada 

Mexico 

West  Indies -Cuba. 


i,  isii 
10 
14 


29,922 


fi 

1 ,  .SOS 


Gallons. 
15,507 


3 

875.537 
10, 793 


153,776 
2,604,546 


1,670 


35,215 
202, 158 


11,695 


7,046 

6 

982 


Gallons. 
16,858 


1,646 

773,267 

8.220 


158,350 
2,356,086 


117 
213,641 


24,305 


43,031 
40 


1,753 
135 

2, 895 


Gallons. 
5,358 
10 

295 
858,691 

4.287 


185,895 
2,959,638 


(i 

1,223 

83 

215,169 


92,893 

23,689 
38 


3,777 

623 

3,680 


SCHEDULE   A. 


273 


PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Imports  of  merchandise — years  ending  June  30,  1907-1911 — Continued. 

OLIVE    OIL,  EXCEPT   FOR    MANUFACTURING    OR    MECHANICAL    PURPOSES  (DUTI- 
ABLE)—Continued. 


Imported  from— 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

South  America: 
Argentina  

Gallons. 
6 

Gallons:. 

Gallons. 

Gallons. 

Gallons. 

Chile      ..              

41 

6 

Asia: 
Chinese  Empire  

5 

Hongkong  

50 
6 
224,930 

Japan  

3 
111,316 

24 
2,092 

3 
132,664 

1 
100,953 

Turkey  in  Asia  

48,414 

Oceania: 
British—  Australia  and  Tasmania  
Africa: 
French  Africa  

544 
1,429 

110 
50 

18,561 
9,187 

2 
18 

258 

43 
1,639 

Morocco  

Turkey  in  Africa- 
Egypt..           

Tripoli  

2,014 

104 

376 

Total  

3,449,517 

3,799,112 

4,129,454 

3,702,210  ,      4,405,827 

RECAPITULATION. 

Europe  

3,333,161 
896 
6 
111,324 
24 
4,106 

Dollars. 
5,501 

3,563,900 
8,052 
41 
224,986 

3,960,985 
8,034 

3,596,105 
4,783 
6 
100,954 

4,347,275 
8,080 

North  America  

South  America  

Asia  

132,667 

48,414 

Oceania  

Africa  -... 

2,133 

Dollars. 
860 
100 
1,998 
1,082,020 
12,796 
11 
39,318 
2,416,583 

27,768 

Dollars. 
16,  196 

362 

Dollars. 
15,033 

2,058 

Dollars. 
6,526 
15 
472 
1,477,284 
6,758 

Europe: 
Austria-  H,ungary  

Azores,  and  Madeira  Islands  

Belgium  

517 
1,087,641 
9,385 

5 
1,383,873 
11,561 

1,258 
1,320,959 
10,116 

France        ..           .        

Germany  

Gibraltar  

Greece                 ...      .                

48,524 
2,100,557 
11 
14 

146,486 
3,118,737 

125,207 
3,034,622 

167,953 
3,955,614 

Italy       

Malta,  Gozo,  etc  

Netherlands  

63 

1,643 

292 

6 
1,576 
113 
215,262 

Norway  

Portugal  

242 
127,135 
1 
12,154 

1        56,546 

452 
82 
580 

8 

102 
129,934 

23,310 
172,750 

169 
196,800 

Spain 

Sweden  

Turkey  in  Europe  

2,054 
52,764 

6,788 
14 
1,797 

8,141 
|        70,046 
1               " 

16,915 

67,010 
90 

77,686 

48,005 
83 

United  Kingdom- 
England        

Scotland  

Ireland  

North  America: 
Canada  

8,320 
15 
1,044 

2,175 
84 
3,256 

5,041 
407 
4,251 

Mexico                

West  Indies  —  Cuba  

South  America: 
Argentina     

Chile        

73 

8 

Asia: 
Chinese  Empire  ... 

5 

Hongkong        

60 
9 
126,281 

Japan          .        

2 
71,930 

35 
1,405 

5 
92,001 

2 
74,819 

Turkey  in  Asia  

45,642 

Oceania: 
British  —  Australia  and  Tasmania  
Africa: 
French  Africa  

352 

2,800 

85 
39 

8,604 
6,840 

2 
11 

203 

46 
1,149 

Morocco  

Turkey  in  Africa- 
Egypt  

Tripoli  

998 

96                   302 

Total  

3,523,725 

3,876,901 

3,738,603 
8,599 
73 
126,350 

5,069,655 

4,869,114         6,014,191 

RECAPITULATION. 

Europe  .         

3,448,228 
1,114 
8 
71,937 
35 
2,403 

4,952,813 
9,379 

4,788,471 
5,515 
8 
74,821 

5,957,353 
9,699 

North  America  

South  America                             

Asia  

92,006 

45,642 

Oceania 

Africa... 

3,276             15.457 

299                1,497 

78959°— VOL  1—13- 


-18 


274  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 
STATEMENT  OF  ANTONIO  ZTJCCA,  REPRESENTING  ZUCCA  &  CO. 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  present  myself  before  this  honorable  committee  as  a 
veteran  merchant  selling  pure  olive  oil,  never  having  sold  a  package 
of  other  than  the  pure  article. 

Forty-two  years  ago  I  commenced  to  sell  said  product,  at  which 
tune  I  was  disposing  of  only  a  few  hundred  cases  a  year;  at  present  I 
sell  about  30,000  cases  and  several  thousand  barrels  annually. 

Although  the  duty  of  about  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  olive  oil  is 
heavy,  its  consumption  has  steadily  increased,  on  account  of  the 
increase  of  the  Latin  immigration;  in  view  also  of  the  fact  that  the 
American  people  find  the  use  of  oil  a  healthy  and  excellent  condiment 
and  its  employment  for  cooking,  illness,  cleanliness  unsurpassed. 

Olive  oil  is  really  a  necessity  of  life  that  should  be  sold  at  prices 
within  the  reach  of  the  masses. 

I  supported  the  passage  of  the  "pure-food  law,"  preventing  the 
entry  and  selling  in  this  country  of  other  than  the  pure  olive  oil  when 
so  branded.  Before  the  passage  of  said  bill  much  of  the  olive  oil 
sold  to  the  public  was  a  mixture  of  cottonseed  and  other  vegetable 
oils,  which,  although  perhaps  not  injurious  to  the  health,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  not  beneficial.  The  law  is  very  strict  as  regards  the 
importation  of  the  pure  product;  nevertheless  the  masses  are  not 
protected  by  it,  as  adulterated  olive  oil  is  packed  and  sold  in  this 
country  by  simply  branding  the  bottle  or  can  containing  the  same 
with  very  attractive  labels  and  names  sufficiently  deceiving  to  keep 
the  unscrupulous  dealers  within  the  law,  while  in  small  type  the 
word  "compound"  is  placed  on  the  labels.  The  quantity  of  this  kind 
of  oil  sold  is  far  in  excess  of  that  of  the  pure.  The  package  and  price 
is  attractive  to  the  consumer,  and  the  seller  realizes  a  much  larger 
profit  than  he  could  ever  make  by  dealing  in  the  pure  article,  with 
the  advantage  of  being  able  to  give  a  much  higher  percentage  to  the 
selling  agent.  The  pure-food  commissioners  are  helpless  in  taking 
any  action  in  the  matter,  as  the  package  is  branded  "compound"  or 
is  bearing  such  other  misleading  phrases. 

In  my  opinion,  there  is  but  one  way  to  restrict  the  selling  of  this 
"compound  oil,"  which  is  actually  an  adulterated  food  product,  and 
that  is  by  reducing  the  tariff  on  pure  oil  to  a  rate  that  will  not  yield 
any  profit  by  selling  a  compound  oil,  such  duty  to  be  20  or  25  cents 
per  gallon  on  packages  and  in  bulk:  for  this  reason,  that  the  present 
lower  rate  of  10  cents  per  gallon  on  oil  imported  in  bulk,  when  it  is 
put  into  packages  here,  is  mixed  with  a  cheaper  grade  of  olive  oil,  but 
is  sold  to  the  public  as  a  finer  quality  than  it  actually  is.  By  such  a 
measure  the  strictly  pure  olive  oil  can  be  sold  to  the  masses  at  just 
as  low  a  figure  as  the  adulterated,  making  it  unprofitable  to  anybody 
who  tries  to  adulterate  the  article  and  sell  it  for  pure. 

Tru;-,  California  produces  some  olive  oil,  but  in  such  a  small  quan- 
tity as  to  be  insufficient  to  supply  the  demand  of  the  State,  or  even 
of  OIK;  city. 

Flie  importation  of  olive  oil  in  California  is  quite  large,  and  a  lower 
tariff  would  be  an  advantage  to  California,  even  when  the  State  pro- 
duces a  larger  quantity,  and  that  will  take  some  time,  as  olive  trees 
l>ear  fruit  only  after  having  been  planted  many  years,  a  tree  50  years 
old  being  considered  a  full-bearing  tree. 


SCHEDULE  A.  275 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Let  the  people  have  olive  oil  at  reasonable  prices.  It  should  not  be 
considered  a  luxurv,  but  a  necessity  of  life.  Dyspepsia  is  unknown 
illness  in  oil-producing  countries,  and  is  due  in  a  great  part  to  the  free 
use  of  pure  olive  oil. 

In  conclusion,  I  sincerely  hope  this  honorable  committee  will  con- 
sider it  important  for  the  good  of  the  masses  to  reduce  the  tariff  on 
olive  oil,  that  the  same  may  be  obtainable  in  every  home  at  a  moderate 
cost. 

I  will  say  this,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  a 
specific  duty,  for  the  reason  it  is  good  for  the  Government  and  good  for 
the  merchant.  With  the  ad  valorem  duty  we  always  have  had 
trouble,  on  account  of  differential  prices  on  the  other  side. 

Another  thing  I  will  say :  As  far  as  revenue  is  concerned  the  con- 
sumption of  olive  oil  in  the  United  States  is  about  10,000,000  gallons 
a  year,  of  which  four  and  a  half  millions  come  from  Italy,  France, 
and  Spain,  and  some  from  Greece.  California  produces  about  800,000 
galloni.  The  other  5,000,000  or  less  than  5,000,000  gallons  that  is 
sold  is  only  this  compound  oil.  It  is  not  bad  oil;  it  is  cottonseed  oil, 
or  peanut  oil,  probably;  but  certainly  it  is  not  very  beneficial  to  the 
health. 

If  you  reduce  the  duty,  say,  one-half  of  what  it  is  to-day,  from  50 
cents  to  25  cents,  I  am  pretty  sure  they  will  have  to  drop  business  in 
this  compound  oil  or  they  will  fail.  And  then,  instead  of  the  im- 
portation of  four  and  a  half  million  gallons,  there  will  be  nine  or  ten 
million  gallons  of  oil,  which  will  give  the  same  revenue  to  the  United 
States  Government.  The  cottonseed-oil  merchants  probably  will 
complain,  but  there  are  a  lot  of  countries  where  they  nave  no  pure- 
food  laws,  and  they  will  not  prohibit  the  cottonseed  oil  produced  in 
such  countries. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  (question.  I  believe  you  are  one 
of  the  best-known  Italian-Americans  in  our  city.  Is  it  not  true  that 
among  the  people  of  Mediterranean  birth,  who  live  hi  the  big  cities  of 
the  East,  olive  oil  is  a  common  substitute  for  butter  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  it  is  known  as  Italian  butter  among  these 
people  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  eat  three  eggs  every  morning,  and  they  are  fried  in 
oil. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  It  is  a  matter  of  general  consumption  in  the  families 
of  these  people  in  all  eastern  cities? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes,  sir.  I  like  steak  in  butter,  but  other  things  we 
fry  in  oil.  In  our  family  of  four  or  five  we  use  from  a  gallon  and  a 
half  to  2  gallons  of  oil  every  week. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  You  do  not  consider  it  a  luxury,  do  you? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  No. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  My  distinguished  opponent  who  defeated  me  in 
the  last  campaign  said  that  olive  oil  was  a  luxury,  and  under  the 
Democratic  theory  they  would  increase  the  duty  if  they  were 
elected.  You  do  not  agree  with  him  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  theory.  And  I  am 
not  a  prophet. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  I  presume  you  have  had  opportunities  to  observe 
the  manufacture  of  the  oil  ? 


276  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  have  you  to  say  about  it  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  The  gentleman  from  California  is  wrong  in  what  he 
stated.  They  have  a  perfect  way  in  Italy  and  in  Spain  for  making 
the  oil:  even  in  Africa  that  is  the  case. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  about  the  cleanliness  of  their  methods  in  mak- 
ing it? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  It  is  very  clean.  I  have  been  in  Lucca,  and  through- 
out tlie  Riviera,  in  northern  Italy.  It  is  very  clean  indeed. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Have  you  seen  them  making  olive  oil  in  California? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  method  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any.  I  believe  California  has 
the  latest  methods.  But  the  best  methods  are  also  used  hi  the  best 
places  in  Italy. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Which  is  the  better,  the  California  oil  or  that  imported 
from  Mediterranean  countries  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  think  there  is  no  difference  whatever  between  that 
which  is  made  at  the  best  places.  It  is  well  done  in  California,  and  it 
is  well  done  in  Italy  and  France  and  Spain. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Did  you  notice  any  difference  in  its  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  No,  I  do  not  believe  so.     Not  in  the  first-class  houses. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Somebody  stated  something  here  about  pressing  out 
olive  oil  in  the  hands,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Oh,  no.  It  is  all  done  by  machinery,  in  bags.  First 
they  pick  out  the  bad  olives:  take  them  out.  Then  the  olives  are  put 
into  bags,  and  then  the  first  grade  of  oil  is  abstracted,  then  the  second 
grade,  and  then  they  put  hot  water  on  it  and  get  the  third-class  oil, 
which  is  machinery  oil. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Is  there  a  kind  of  government  supervision  over  there? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Do  they  look  after  cleanliness  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Oh,  yes.  Xo  package  of  oil  goes  away  from  the  city 
of  Lucca  which  has  not  a  certificate  from  the  board  of  health  given 
with  the  invoice. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Is  the  oil  they  export  as  good  as  that  which  they  keep 
for  homo  consumption  '. 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  They  are  not  so  particular  about  machinery  oil.  There 
is  a  lot  that  comes  for  machinery  purposes.  They  neutralize  the  oil. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  For  what  they  send  over  to  us,  do  they  require  the 
same  sort  of  health  certificate  as  at  home? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  I  guess  not;  I  do  not  think  so.  They  are  putting 
some  sulphur  there. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  They  are  not  so  careful  about  what  we  eat  as  they 
aro  about  what  they  eat  over  there? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  They  are  very  clean,  as  far  as  I  saw.  I  go  quite  often 
to  Italy,  and  T  have  been  in  Spain  and  in  Greece,  and  in  the  best 
places  they  use  very  clean  methods.  I  guess  the  gentleman  from 
California  must  have  been  there  possibly  50  years  ago. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  not  they  require  the  same  stamp  on  the  oil  they 
ship  to  us,  which  is  required  for  that  which  they  use  amoncr  the  people 
at  home? 


SCHEDULE  A.  277 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes;  the  board  of  health  supervises  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  When  it  comes  out  of  the  factory,  the  same  stamp  is 
required  if  it  is  to  be  exported  as  if  it  is  to  be  used  over  there  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Not  the  same,  because  there  the  board  of  health  certi- 
fies they  have  a  hundred  cases  of  oil  from  Lucca  which  has  been 
shipped  to  Zucca  &  Co.,  New  York,  or  to  somebody  else,  and  attached 
to  the  invoice  is  a  certificate  from  the  board  of  health  stating  that 
the  supervisor  has  been  there  and  examined  the  oil,  as  to  how  they 
make  it,  how  they  pack  it,  and  everything  else,  which  is  in  that 
certificate  from  the  board  of  health. 

Mr.  Dixox.  How  about  the  quality  of  the  oil  in  California  and 
there « 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  It  is  the  same  in  the  best  places.  California  oil  is  very 
fine.  Some  of  it  has  a  strong  taste,  the  same  as  the  California  wine, 
because  the  imported  wine  is  more  fine,  because  the  soil  has  been 
worked  more.  It  is  the  same  about  the  California  oil.  I  tasted  it, 
and  some  of  it  has  a  little  of  that  soil  taste.  That  is  probably  because 
the  soil  is  too  rich. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Suppose  those  Italian  boards  of  health  should  refuse 
to  stamp  a  lot  of  oil  manufactured  because  it  was  not  up  to  the 
standard.  What  would  thev  do  with  it?  How  would  they  dispose 
of  it  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  They  would  dispose  of  it  there,  I  suppose.     They  do  it. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  could  not  dispose  of  it  there,  could  they  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Olive  oil,  you  know,  is  not  sent  only  to  the  United 
States.  Down  in  Central  America  they  use  it  in  large  quantities,  and 
they  have  no  pure-food  law. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Then  it  is  sent  out  of  the  country,  what  they  can  not 
use  there  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes.  They  send  it  to  South  America,  and  they  send 
it  to  South  Africa;  all  places. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  They  are  just  as  likely  to  send  it  over  here,  are  they 
not? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  They  can  not  do  that,  because  the  oil  is  examined  by 
the  pure  food  commissioners — every  lot  of  oil  received.  When  we 
get  an  invoice  of  a  lot  of  oil  we  find  two  or  three  cans  that  have 
been  taken  from  the  cases  and  examined  by  the  pure  food  people. 
If  they  find  anything  mixed  with  it,  they  do  not  allow  it  to  enter  into 
the  country,  and  it  has  got  to  go  back.  They  send  it  back  to  the 
other  side. 

Mr.  PETERS.  The  Italian  olive  oil  imported  here  is  examined  as  to 
its  condition,  both  in  Italy  and  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  It  is;  not  only  the  Italian,  but  every  oil,  except 
machinery  oil,  which  is  examined.  They  neutralize  it  in  such  a 
way  that  it  could  not  be  used  for  eating  purposes. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Will  you  tell  us  whether  the  Italian  olive  oil  sent 
here  for  consumption  is  subjected  to  the  same  examination  in  Italy 
as  if  it  was  to  be  consumed  there  ? 

Mr.  ZUCCA.  Yes;  by  the  board  of  health,  the  local  board  of  health. 
It  is  a  local  law  for  the  benefit  of  the  honest  producer  there. 


278  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

STATEMENT  OF  C.  A.  MARIANI,  REPRESENTING  THE  E.  MARIANI 
CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mariana,  I  understand,  wants  to  appear  before 
the  committee.  Give  your  name,  Mr.  Mariana,  to  the  stenographer. 

Mr.  MARIANI.  C.  A.  Mariana,  of  the  E.  Mariana  Co.,  29  Broadway, 
New  York  City. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  this  honorable  committee,  1  want 
to  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  given  me,  especially  as  this  brief 
that  I  am  reading  from  was  published  as  a  part  of  yesterday's  pro- 
ceedings. I  had  a  special  motive,  however,  in  asking  the  privilege 
of  speaking  before  you,  and  that  was  to  advise  you  that  I  could  not 
appear  before  your  committee  as  a  special  representative  of  the 
Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  (as  I  had  previously  advised  the  mem- 
bers of  your  committee  I  would),  because  they  have  presented  their 
brief  direct,  and  because,  as  a  result  of  conversation  with  certain 
official  gentlemen  in  Washington,  I  was  advised  that  I  could  not 
appear  as  their  representative  officially  anyway,  as  they  were  sub- 
sidized by  the  Italian  Government.  I  therefore  had  to  present  a 
new  brief  myself  under  my  own  name  in  order  to  properly  get  before 
your  committee. 

I  want  this  committee  to  know  I  regard  this  brief  as  not  my  own 
personal  views,  and  that  is  why  I  asked  to  come  before  you  this  after- 
noon. If  it  represented  my  own  personal  views,  as  I  start  off  in  my 
brief,  I  state  that  I  am  in  favor  of  olive  oil  being  absolutely  free  for 
the  very  obvious  reasons  which  I  cover  in  my  brief.  But  I  wanted 
this  committee  to  know  that  this  brief  that  I  have  presented  repre- 
sents the  opinions  of  practically  half  the  importation  of  Italian  olive 
oil  as  a  result  of  testimony  that  I  had  taken  as  chairman  of  that  com- 
mittee in  the  last  three  weeks.  That  is  one  point. 

Another  point  I  wanted  this  committee  to  know,  which  certainly 
is  important,  is  that  I  made  a  statement  in  my  brief  that  one  clause 
of  the  last  bill  that  was  passed  was  vicious.  1  did  not  mean  that  in 
a  personal  way.  That  is,  I  meant  by  that  it  would  result  viciously 
for  the  Government.  That  to  which  I  had  reference  was  the  ad 
valorem  clause  in  connection  with  the  duty  on  olive  oil. 

I  say  in  my  brief,  and  I  think  I  can  be  borne  out  in  my  statement, 
that  there  are  very  few,  if  any,  experts  in  the  United  States  at  the 
present  time  capable  of  deciding  on  the  quality  of  olive  oil.  The 
subject  of  the  quality  of  olive  oil  is  one  of  the  few  features  of  olive 
oil  that  has  not  been  given  consideration  by  the  Federal  Government. 
For  your  information  in  to-day's  market  in  France,  Italy,  and  Spain, 
between  the  first  and  last  grade  of  olive  oil,  there  is  a  difference  of 
some  51  cents  a  gallon  in  the  price  there. 

I  contend,  as  1  have  expressed  in  my  brief,  as  the  result  of  con- 
sultations 1  have  had  with  others  that  a  separate,  specific  duty  on  oil 
containers,  whether  they  be  half-pint  bottles  or  5  or  50  gallon 'barrels, 
will  result  in  the  Government  obtaining  one  principal  feature  that 
they  are  trying  to  obtain,  outside  of  the  revenue  end,  and  that  is  to 
get  to  the  consumer  the  best  product  obtainable  at  the  least  possible 
cost.  A  specific  duty  of  25  per  cent  will  encourage  the  exportation 
to  the  l"niled  States  of  a  higher  <rrade  of  olive  oil. 


.tt  A.  279 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  You  mean  25  cents  i 

Mr.  MARIANI.  Twenty-five  cents  per  gallon. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  You  said  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  MARIAXI.  I  meant  25  cents  per  gallon;  thank  you.  I  want 
to  state  for  the  benefit  of  this  committee  that  with  a  normal  crop  in 
Europe  of  olive  oil,  with  a  specific  duty  of  25  cents  a  gallon,  it  will 
be  retailed  at  $2  or  $2.10  per  gallon,  which  will  bring  it  in  its  smaller 
containers  •within  the  reach  of  the  entire  public. 

There  are  two  other  features  in  my  brief  to  which  I  want  quickly 
to  call  your  attention,  and  I  know  you  have  to  get  away.  One  is 
the  labeling  of  the  country  of  origin  on  the  package  be  made  a  part 
of  the  law.  That  is  a  protection  to  the  purchaser.  It  has  been  cus- 
tomary in  the  past  by  usage,  which  is  the  rule,  to  label  the  name  of 
a  city  and  call  the  brand  after  the  name  of  that  city.  But  it  has 
fallen  into  such  usage  that  other  cities  ship  oil  to  that  city  and  then 
reship  it  to  this  and  other  countries,  carrying  the  name  of  the  city, 
which  is  false.  For  instance,  I  have  in  my  mind  Nice,  Bordeaux, 
and  Lucca.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  not  enough  Lucca  olive  oil 
produced  in  the  Province  of  Lucca  to  take  care  of  the  people  of  that 
Province.  And  I  dare  say  there  is  not  a  gentleman  on  this  com- 
mittee who,  if  he  asked  his  wife  what  brand  of  olive  oil  she  used, 
she  would  say  "Lucca  olive  oil,"  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  is 
not  one  in  a  hundred  that  is  using  it. 

I  therefore  ask,  as  a  protection  to  the  housewife,  the  one  who  is 
most  affected  by  this  olive-oil  proposition,  especially  as  it  is  becoming 
so  important  from  a  medicinal  standpoint,  that  the  labeling  of  the 
country  of  origin — "Made  in  Italy,"  "Absolutely  pure  olive  oil  made 
in  Italy,"  "Absolutely  pure  olive  oil  made  in  France,"  be  made  a 
part  of  the  act,  compelling  them  to  carry  the  same  on  the  original 
container. 

The  last  feature  that  I  bring  to  your  attention,  and  it  is  very  im- 
portant, especially  for  the  consumer — and  many  of  these  features  will 
harass  the  houses  on  the  other  side,  and  therefore  I  am  working  for  the 
consumer  alone  in  this  contention — is  the  fact  that  by  usage,  especially 
in  Italy,  which  I  will  take  for  a  basis,  it  has  been  customary  to  quote 
prices  in  lires  for  a  case  of  12  so-called  gallons  or  24  so-called  half  gal- 
lons, or  48  so-called  quart  this.  As  those  packages  have  become  a 
sort  of  universal  thing,  the  unscrupulous  buyer  in  this  country  to-day 
imports  those  12  tins  with  32  kilos  to  the  case.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
if  they  were  full  gallon,  half  gallon,  or  quart  they  would  be  pretty  near 
41  kilos  to  the  case,  which  means  that  the  unscrupulous  buyer  of  olive 
oil  on  to-day's  market  has  13  cents  leeway  by  importing  short  of  meas- 
ure more  than  he  would  have  if  he  wras  compelled  by  law  to  mark 
the  absolute  contents  on  the  package,  on  the  box,  or  container.  I 
do  not  contend  that  a  short  container  should  not  be  brought  into 
this  country,  but  I  do  contend  that  in  the  interest  of  fair  competition 
and  in  the  interest  of  the  retail  buyer,  that  container  should  have 
marked  on  it  what  it  contains,  absolutely. 

First.  That  will  assist  the  appraisers  of  the  port  in  appraising  the 
duty,  especially  if  it  is  a  specific  duty. 

Second.  It  will  encourage  healthy  competition. 


280  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

Third.  It  will  give  the  consumer  to-day  one-tenth  more  olive  oil 
than  he  has  been  in  the  habit  of  getting  from  certain  houses. 

I  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  say  you  represent  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce ? 

Mr  MARIANI.  I  say  I  can  not  officially  represent  them. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  was  an  institution  sub- 
sidized by  the  Italian  Government  ? 

Mr.  MARIANI.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  MARIANI.  In  all  foreign  countries  practically  the  chambers  of 
commerce  of  those  countries  receive  a  revenue  from  the  Government 
for  the  maintenance  of  commerce  between  the  two  countries. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  Italian  Government  maintains  the  institution  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  MARIANI.  To  an  extent  only,  and  therefore  I  was  advised  J 
could  not  appear  officially  before  the  committee  as  a  representative 
of  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce;  first,  for  the  above  reason,  and 
second,  because  their  board  of  directors  did  not  formally  pass  a  reso- 
lution authorizing  me  to  appear  before  this  committee,  which  is  the 
reason  that  I  am  presenting  my  personal  brief,  which  I  wanted  this 
committee  to  know  is  not  my  personal  brief  as  far  as  my  personal 
ideas  are  concerned,  but  is  the  result  of  the  testimony  that  I  have 
taken  in  the  last  three  weeks,  and  that  is  why  I  am  here  this  afternoon 
to  make  this  statement. 

The  witness  filed  the  following  communication,  respecting  olive 
oils,  with  the  committee: 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  ^feans,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  In  appealing  to  your  committee  for  your  consideration  of  the 
following  views  suggestive  of  what  principal  features  pertaining  to  olive  oils  imported 
from  foreign  countries,  should  have  the  consideration  of  your  honorable  committee,  I 
beg  to  advise  that  in  filing  with  your  committee  the  following  enumerated  facts,  I  have 
not  taken  a  decision  as  chairman  of  the  tariff  committee  of  the  Italian  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  whose  memorial  has  been  submitted  to  your  committee,  neither  have  I 
taken  alone  my  personal  views  and  wishes  on  this  very  important  subject,  but  I  have 
endeavored  in  colaborating  the  following  data  to  keep  foremost  in  my  mind  the  inter- 
ests of  the  five  potent  factors  that  are  directly  affected  by  any  legislation  affecting  the 
tariff  on  olive  oils.  These  five  factors  considered  are  as  follows: 

First  and  foremost,  the  Government  and  its  necessity  to  raise  revenue; 

Second  and  quite  as  important,  the  interests  of  the  consumer  in  this  country; 

Third,  the  effect  of  any  legislation  on  the  American  producer; 

Fourth,  the  importer,  who  gains  his  livelihood  by  bringing  olive  oils  into  this  country; 
and 

Fifth,  the  exporter,  who  looks  to  this  country  for  a  market  for  his  products. 

Had  I  appealed  to  your  committee  from  my  own  viewpoint,  my  brief  would  contain 
but  five  words,  namely:  "Olive  oils  should  be  free."  But  rather  I  have  endeavored 
to  bring  to  your  committee  suggestions  that  in  my  opinion  would  benefit  the  greatest 
number  of  the  American  public. 

From  20  to  25  years  ago  either  the  importation  of  olive  oils  or  the  production  of 
olive  oils  in  this  country  was  a  very  small  and  insignificant  item.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
as  lale  as  1902  the  importations  of'  edible  olive  oils  totaled  only  a  little  over  700,000 
gallons  from  all  countries,  and  in  J911  these  figures  were  increased  to  nearly  4,500,000 
gallons.  The  consumption  of  foreign  olive  oils  and  of  olive  oil  in  general  must  steadily 
increase,  especially  if  the  same  (imported  olive  oils)  are  placed  within  the  reach  of 
the  average  consumer.  In  1911,  when  the  consumption  of  foreign  olive  oils  reached 
nearly  4..r)0o)()(i(i  nallons,  the  prices  in  foreign  countries  were  very  high  for  two  reasons: 


SCHEDULE  A.  281 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

First,  the  increased  demand  in  North  and  South  America;  and,  second,  the  ex- 
ceptionally small  crop  produced,  owing  to  adverse  agricultural  conditions. 

This  enormous  total  at  the  high  prices  existing  in  1911  was  reached  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  this  product  is  produced  in  California,  and  it  might  be  well  for  your  com- 
mittee to  recognize  the  fact,  in  listening  to  this  application  for  a  reduction  in  the  tariff, 
that  despite  the  adverse  conditions  in  1911  California  was  unable  to  compete  with 
foreign  olive  oils  in  either  price  or  quality,  even  when  the  price  of  foreign  olive  oils 
was  so  high,  and  it  might  be  well  for  your  committee  to  consider  the  fact  that  in  1911 
more  foreign  olive  oils  were  consumed  in  California  than  California  olive  oils,  the  reason 
for  this  being  that  the  olive-oil  industry  in  California  is  at  the  present  time  in  its  in- 
fancy. It  has  had  a  varied  career.  The  planting  of  olive  trees  has  taken  place  in 
sections  where  the  climatic  conditions  were  unsuited  to  the  proper  production  of  olive 
oil,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  in  many  places  the  planting  of  olives  has  been 
suspended  and  olive  trees  previously  planted  have  had  to  be  rooted  out. 

Your  committee  should  also  consider  the  fact  that  California  is  said  to  have  pro- 
duced less  than  1,000,000  gallons  of  olive  oil  in  1911,  which  can  be  seen  by  your  com- 
mittee to  be  nowhere  enough  to  take  care  of  the  local  demands.  Your  committee 
should  also  consider  the  fact  that  in  listening  to  this  application  for  a  reduction  in 
the  tariff  on  olive  oil,  they  must  remember  that  this  reduction  asked  is  not  for  all 
time,  and  should  labor  and  local  conditions  in  California  warrant  a  further  considera- 
tion of  your  committee  in  the  future,  that  the  same  can  be  taken  into  consideration 
at  that  time,  as  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  no  tariff  bill  that  is  practical  to-day  that  is 
passed  by  Congress  will  be  practical  in  its  entirety  5  or  10  years  from  now,  owing  to 
the  changed  conditions  that  must  exist  both  in  this  and  other  countries  5  or  10  years 
from  now. 

My  understanding  of  the  present  revision  of  the  tariff  is  that  it  is  to  get  to  the  con- 
sumer especially  necessities  of  life  if  possible  at  a  lower  initial  cost  to  them.  In 
instances  where  the  local  product  is  not  jeopardized  and  as  it  is  impossible  for  Cali- 
fornia to  produce  olive  oils  at  the  present  time  in  competition  with  foreign  olive  oil 
in  price,  notwithstanding  the  present  high  duty,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government 
to  take  in  hand  the  interests  of  the  consumers  and  reduce  the  duty,  therefore  the  cost 
to  the  consumer. 

I  would  recommend  a  straight  specific  duty  on  olive  oil,  no  matter  what  the  size 
of  its  container  may  be,  at  25  cents  a  gallon.  And  if  this  recommendation  is  accepted 
by  your  honorable  committee  you  will  find  that  it  will  result  in  an  increased  revenue 
for  the  Government.  I  say  this  advisedly  and  I  am  in  a  position  to  show  my  books 
for  the  last  10  vears,  which  will  prove  to  your  committee  that  a  difference  of  25  cents 
in  the  price  of  imported  olive  oil  has  in  the  past  affected  my  annual  output  more 
than  100  per  cent  one  way  or  another.  As  an  illustration  of  this,  owing  to  the  very 
bad  condition  of  the  present  crop  in  Italy,  the  price  this  year,  in  December,  ranges 
from  30  to  40  cents  a  gallon  higher  than  in  December,  1911,  and  my  sales  for  this 
December  are  at  least  one-sixth  of  what  they  were  for  last  December.  I  therefore 
contend  that  on  the  subject  of  olive  oils  that  not  only  the  consumer  but  the  Gov- 
ernment itself  will  be  the  gainer  by  a  reduction  in  the  tariff.  There  is  another  and 
very  strong  and  commendable  reason  why  the  tariff  on  olive  oil  should  be  reduced. 
Your  committee  should  take  into  consideration  that  every  day  the  physicians  of  this 
country  are  prescribing  olive  oils  for  medicinal  purposes  and,  strange  as  it  may  seem, 
the  oidinary  working  man,  per  capita,  shows  a  greater  percentage  in  the  population 
in  general  to  whom  advice  is  being  given  by  physicians  to  use  olive  oil  for  medicinal 
purposes  and  this  is  the  man  who  finds  olive  oil  outside  of  his  financial  reach  to-day 
and  can  not  follow  the  advice  of  his  physician  to  use  olive  oil  after  his  ailment  is  reme- 
died (for  culinary  pui poses)  because  he  can  not  afford  the  same.  It  might  be  well 
for  your  committee  to  consider  that  even  though  a  self-sustaining  nation,  we  are  still 
young  in  years,  and  there  are  still  left  many  things  that  we  can  learn  from  the  mother 
countries  from  which  our  ancestors  came,  and  principal  and  foremost  above  all  items 
of  instructions  that  we  should  heed  from  the  mother  countries  is  "to  learn  how  to 
eat."  In  this  respect,  through  the  influence  of  our  immigrant  class,  we  are  rapidly 
learning  the  importance  of  the  daily  use  of  olive  oil  as  a  necessary  food  product  and 
were  its  use  made  possible  by  the  reduction  we  seek,  your  honorable  body  will  very 
soon  learn  two  things:  First,  that  this  industry  is  in  its  infancy,  partially  owing  to 
its  present  high  cost,  and  secondly,  that  there  is  one  item  in  the  tariff  bill  whereby 
the  revenue  of  the  Government  can  be  greatly  increased  by  a  reduction  in  the  tariff. 

I  ask  for  a  universal  specific  duty  on  all  containers  of  25  cents  per  gallon,  because 
the  recent  bill  passed  and  vetoed  contained,  under  the  item  of  olive  oil,  a  vicious 
feature,  inasmuch  as  it  prescribed  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per  cent  on  all  containers 


282  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OH*. 

over  5  gallons.  I  say  that  this  feature  is  vicious  advisedly.  In  the  first  place  there 
are  very  few,  if  any,  experts  in  the  employ  of  the  Government  who  could  absolutely 
determine  the  cost  of  olive  oil;  there  are  so  many  grades  that  an  ad  valorem  duty 
would  subject  the  Government  to  continual  fraud.  Consular  invoices  abroad  would 
contain  misstatements,  and  the  cost  to  the  Government  for  procuring  experts  to 
ascertain  on  every  individual  importation  information  as  to  whether  the  consular 
invoice  has  properly  stated  the  value  of  the  product  or  not  would  greatly  jeopardize  the 
revenue  thus  received.  ^This  proposed  ad  valorem  duty  would  further  open  up 
illegitimate  competition,  inasmuch  as  the  unscrupulous  would  endeavor  to  make 
misstatements  on  their  consular  invoices.  This  is  a  very  important  factor  for  your 
committee  to  consider,  especially  when  you  consider  the  fact  that  between  the  highest 
and  lowest  grades  of  olive  oil  in  Italy  and  France  there  is  a  difference  in  the  foreign 
cost  of  approximately  50  cents  a  gallon. 

Another  reason  why  I  ask  for  a  specific  duty — this  duty  being  the  same  (25  cents  a 
gallon)  on  all  containers— is  because  at  the  present  time,  under  the  present  tariff 
bill,  where  the  duty  on  small  containers  is  50  cents  and  on  large  containers  40  cents, 
a  channel  for  illegitimate  competition  is  opened  up.  The  small  dealer  who  has  a 
relative  abroad,  with  a  small  farm,  and  the  chances  are  inexperienced  in  producing 
the  oil  from  the  olives,  is  enabled  by  the  difference  of  10  cents  a  gallon  to  import 
small  quantities  of  oilve  oil  in  bulk  of  questionable  grade  and  deal  the  same  out  to 
his  local  friends  as  the  finest  product  obtainable,  being  satisfied  with  little  or  no 
profit  except  the  glory  of  delivering  olive  oil  from  his  own  relatives  to  his  friends, 
which,  as  above  stated,  is  as  a  rule  of  inferior  quality,  and  this  in  competition  with 
the  legitimate  importer,  with  enormous  capital  at  stake.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
your  honorable  committee  will  make  a  universal  specific  duty  of  25  cents  per  gallon, 
it  will  be  to  the  general  benefit  of  the  public  at  large,  inasmuch  as  it  will  be  a  bar  to 
the  importation  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  olive  oil  for  edible  purposes,  as  these  oils 
are  only  used  in  the  foreign  countries  for  blending  purposes,  but  at  the  present  time 
under  the  present  duty  are  imported  into  this  country  in  bulk  and  are  used  in  their 
original  form  and  also  for  blending  with  cottonseed  or  compound  oil,  and  when 
used  in  their  original  form  invariably  hinder  the  progress  of  the  industry,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  what  we  term  olio  grasso,  or  greasy  oil,  which  physicians  declare  is  unfit 
for  medicinal  use,  inasmuch  as  the  greasy  oil  is  nauseating  to  the  sick  stomach. 

I  would  further  ask  your  committee  to  do  away  with  the  present  ad  valorem  duty 
on  glass  containers  or  jugs,  which  are  at  present  subjected  to  an  ad  valorem  duty, 
but  which  I  claim  should  be  exempted  from  any  duty  when  said  containers,  bottles, 
or  jugs  bear  the  brand  or  mark  of  the  manufacturer  in  such  manner  that  it  can  not 
be  removed  without  destroying  the  containers,  thus  rendering  such  containers  unfit 
for  further  commercial  use. 

This  last  request  will  result  in  the  public  becoming  acquainted  with  specific  brands 
and  will  greatly  encourage  the  use  of  the  better  grade  of  olive  oils,  inasmuch  as  all 
containers  coming  into  this  country  under  the  pure-food  regulations  must  have  a 
complete  statement  in  English  on  them  stating  exactly  what  they  contain,  and  inas- 
much as  this  is  practically  a  Government  guaranty  that  the  statement  contained 
on  the  container  is  authentic. 

While  your  honorable  body  is  revising  this  item  of  Schedule  A,  I  believe  it  would 
be  practical  and  I  know  that  it  would  be  to  the  general  benefit,  especially  of  our 
English-speaking  public,  were  you  to  decide  on  an  item  regarding  the  proper  labels 
of  olive  oils  imported  into  this  country.  Practically  the  first  olive  oil  imported  from 
Italy  came  from  the  city  of  Lucca,  and  at  that  time  the  demand  for  olive  oil  was 
limited  and  the  other  Provinces  of  Italy  producing  oil  did  not  enter  into  exportation 
of  this  product  to  the  United  States.  The  same  tiling  is  true  of  Nice  and  Bordeaux, 
in  France,  which  resulted  in  the  retail  merchant  only  knowing  oil  produced  in  these 
places  and  as  the  demand  increased  the  supply  very  soon  became  exhausted  and  the 
dealers  in  these  places  found  it  necessary,  as  they  do  to-day,  to  buy  the  largest  per- 
centage of  their  olive  oil  for  exportation  purposes  from  other  Provinces,  both  in  Italy 
and  France  and  other  countries,  where  they  have  gone  in  for  the  exportation  of  olive 
oil.  In  many  and  in  nearly  all  instances  the  oil  from  these  various  Provinces  became 
so  popular  in  the  public  mind  in  this  country  and  South  America  that  the  trade  on 
the  oils  from  these  special  Provinces  became  practically  the  only  ones  that  were 
marketable.  This  resulted  in  a  demand,  as  above  stated,  many  times  larger  than  the 
output  and  further  resulted  in  capital  being  brought  from  other  Provinces  to  take 
care  of  the  olive  oil  produced  in  their  own  Provinces  at  the  popular  point  of  exporta- 
tion, as  it  was  not  possible  for  them  to  export  from  their  own  Provinces  for  the  above 
reasons.  Fur  illustration,  olive-oil  houses  in  the  Rivieras  of  Genoa  opened  up 


SCHEDULE   A.  283 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

branches  in  the  city  of  Lucca,  shipped  their  Genoa  oil  to  Lucca,  and  exported  the 
same  from  Lucca  to  the  United  States  and  South  America  and  other  countries  as 
"Lucca  olive  oil."  To  illustrate  the  injustice  of  this,  there  is  not  one  in  10  Ameri- 
can families  using  Italian  olive  oil  to-day  who  will  not  tell  you  that  they  only  UM- 
Lucca  olive  oil,  when  as  a  matter  of  absolute  fact  there  is  not  one  in  a  hundred  Ameri- 
can families  who  ever  obtained  Lucca  olive  oil,  because  there  is  not  enough  of  this 
type  of  olive  oil  produced  to  supply  the  demands  of  the  Province  of  Lucca.  This 
same  thing  holds  good  in  Nice  and  Bordeaux,  France,  and  in  other  countries,  and  has 
only  been  made  possible  in  this  country  by  the  ruling  of  the  Government,  or  usage 
into  which  the  Government  has  fallen  by  habit,  of  allowing  olive  oil  from  Lucca, 
Bordeaux,  or  Nice  to  be  labeled  "Lucca,  Nice,  or  Bordeaux  olive  oil." 

It  is  not  possible  to-day  for  a  house  in  Genoa.  Torino,  or  Naples,  Italy,  to  ship  oil 
to  the  United  States  and  mark  it  "Lucca  olive  oil."  This  ruling  would  be  just  if  the 
products  actually  came  from  these  special  provinces,  but  inasmuch  as  the  Govern- 
ment reports  show  that  there  is  not  enough  oil  produced  in  these  special  provinces 
to  take  care  of  local  demands,  it  is  my  request  and  urgent  prayer  to  your  honorable 
body  that  you  rule  in  your  tariff  bill  that  all  olive  oil  coining  into  this  country — 
that  is,  pure  olive  oil  and  is  so  stated  on  consular  invoice — shall  be  labeled  on  original 
container,  in  plain  English,  "This  container  contains  pure  olive  oil.  product  of  Italy," 
or  "This  container  contains  pure  olive  oil,  product  of  France,"  or  the  same  statement 
from  any  other  country  from  which  the  oil  may  come.  This  ruling  will  not  only  give 
all  producers  of  olive  oil  a  fair  chance,  but  will  do  away  with  a  great  injustice  that  has 
existed  and  will  also  do  away  with  the  uses  of  olive  oils  of  other  countries  by  the  coun- 
tries shipping  the  oil  to  the  United  States,  unless  so  speciiied  on  the  container,  and 
will  give  the  American  consumer  the  character  of  olive  oil  that  he  requires  and  will 
stimulate  legitimate  competition. 

The  last  feature  that  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  your  committee  on  is  the  compulsory 
marking  of  containers  as  to  their  contents.  This  is  a  very  serious  item  in  the  industry 
to-day,  and  without  any  regulations  to  cover  this  clause  at  the  present  time  a  housewife 
goes  to  her  grocer  and  buys  ''a  tin  of  oliveoil."  If  it  is  the  quart  size  she  wants,  she  pre- 
sumes that  she  is  purchasing  a  quart.  The  universal  standard  in  Italy  to-day  recog- 
nized by  usage  is  a  case  of  12  ''so-called  "gallons,  24  half  gallons,  or  48  quarts,  and  accord- 
ing to  this  usage  they  contain  approximately  40  kilos  of  olive  oil,  when  as  a  matter  of 
fact  if  they  contained  12  full  gallons  the  same  would  contain  nearer  41  kilos  of  oil.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  for  competition  purposes  the  same  12,  24,  or  48  tins  are  shipped  to  this 
country  containing  as  low  as  37  kilos  of  oil  to  the  case,  which  means  four  kilos  of  oil  or 
thereabouts  less  than  full  measure,  making  a  difference  on  to-day's  market  in  Italy 
or  France  of  about  13  cents  a  gallon,  giving  the  unscrupulous  importer  this  much  lee- 
way and  cheating  the  consumer  out  of  a  tenth  of  the  oliveoil  that  he  supposes  he  has 
purchased  and  paid  for.  I  do  not  protest  and  object  to  these  importers  who  follow  this 
custom,  importing  the  olive  oil  in  reduced  size  containers,  but  I  do  say  in  the 
interest  of  legitimate  competition  that  your  honorable  body  should  include  in  the 
olive-oil  schedule  a  clause  compelling  the  importer  to  have  marked  on  every  container 
in  plain  English  the  amount  of  oil  the  receptacle  contains.  This  will  improve  the  im- 
portation of  this  product  in  three  distinct  ways:  First,  it  will  be  of  great  assistance  to 
the  Government  appraisers  in  deciding  upon  the  duty  to  be  assessed;  second,  it  will 
do  away  with  unscrupulous  competition;  and  third,  it  will  protect  the  consumer, 
inasmuch  as  he  will  know  exactly  what  he  is  purchasing,  thereby  working  to  the 
benefit  of  all  parties  concerned. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  recommendation  I  told  your  committee  that  I  would  write 
advisedly,  and  that  my  request  would  be  based  accordingly.  In  verification  of  this  I 
wish  your  committee  to  know  that  I  represent  an  exporter  of  Italian  olive  oil  and  an 
exporter  of  French  olive  oil ,  and  that  as  a  broker  for  these  houses  I  bring  into  the  United 
States  approximately  250,000  gallons  of  olive  oil  anmially.  Furthermore,  I  am  finan- 
cially interested  in  an  olive  oil  importing  company,  who  import  approximately  75,000 
gallons  of  olive  oil  annually.  Furthermore,  through  this  company,  I  am  doing  business 
with  about  1,500  retailers,  and  finally,  through  advertising  plans  that  lam  carrying  out, 
I  am  in  touch  annually,  by  correspondence,  with  possibly  10,000  consumers,  amongst 
whom  physicians  form  an  important  factor,  and  therefore  in  coming  to  the  following 
conclusions  I  feel  that  I  ask  your  honorable  body  for  changes  in  the  present  tariff  bill 
that  are  for  the  benefit  of  the  greatest  number  concerned.  Deductions  from  the  above 
are  as  follows: 

(a)  That  the  present  duty  on  olive  oils  is  excessive  and  should  be  reduced. 

(6)  That  my  proposed  reduction  will  not  unfavorably  affect  any  American  industry. 

(c)  That  my  proposed  reduction  will  result  in  increased  revenue  for  the  Government. 


*AEIFF   HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

(d)  That  the  proposed  reduction  will  work  directly  to  the  benefit  of  the  consumer. 

(e)  That  the  proposed  reduction  will  necessarily  increase  the  importation  of  this 

(/)  That  the  proposed  reduction  should  be  to  a  specific  duty  of  25  cents  a  gallon  on 
all-sized  containers. 

(a)  That  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  to  the  disadvantage  of  all  parties  concerned. 

(h)  That  there  should  be  no  duty  on  containers  bearing  the  brand  or  name  of  the 
manufacturer  in  such  a  manner  that  it  can  not  be  removed. 

(i)  That  the  country  of  origin  only  shall  be  marked  on  container,  along  with  a  state- 
ment as  to  the  purity  of  the  product  imported ;  and  finally 

(?')  That  all  containers  should  state  plainly  their  contents. 

Regarding  the  above  recommendation,  the  writer  wishes  to  advise  your  honorable 
committee  that  he  holds  himself  in  readiness  at  all  times  to  bring  any  of  the  above 
features  to  a  successful  conclusion  in  any  way  that  he  may  assist  your  committee,  or  any 
other  features  that  may  be  recommended  that  are  for  the  improvement  of  this  feature 
of  the  tariff. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

C.  A.  MARIAN  i, 
President  of  the  E.  Marlani  Co., 

29  Broadway,  New  York  City. 

PROTEST  OF  ITALIAN  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  RESPECTING 
CERTAIN  STATEMENTS  MADE  TO  THE  COMMITTEE. 

NEW  YORK,  January  15,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  l,Yays  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  In  view  of  certain  statements  by  Mr.  C.  A.  Mariani,  of  New 
York,  before  your  honorable  committee  at  the  hearing  of  January  7, 
in  connection  with  tariff  schedule  A  (olive  oil),  as  appear  from  the 
stenographic  report  of  the  said  hearing  No.  2,  pages  282  and  284,  and 
which  refer  to  this  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  this  chamber  begs 
leave  to  protest  against  such  statements,  as  they  are  contrary  to  truth. 

The  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  New  York  is  an  association 
of  merchants  and  was  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of 
Now  York  in  1887.  Its  members  are  for  the  majority  Americans, 
or  American  citizens,  whose  business  is  directly  connected  with  the 
import  and  export  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Italy,  in 
both  directions,  as  well  as  with  domestic  industries  and  commerce  of 
the  United  States.  This  chamber  has  therefore  all  legal  and  moral 
lights  and  requirements  for  appearing  or  being  represented  as  an 
American  trade  organization  before  any  Federal,  State,  or  municipal 
authorities  in  this  country,  while  its  importance  in  the  foreign  trade 
of  the  United  States  is  well  demonstrated  by  statistics  showing 
yearly  trade  exchanges  between  the  United  States  and  Italy  amount- 
ing to  nearly  $130,000,000. 

The  reasons  for  which  Mr.  C.  A.  Mariani  could  not  represent  this 
chamber  at  that  hearing  were  therefore  other  than  those  stated  by 
him.  In  fact,  he  wanted  to  appear  before  your  honorable  committee 
as  representative  of  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  New  York, 
and  having  appointed  himself  as  such,  proceeded  to  spread  the  newrs, 
which  we  understand  reached  you  as  well,  that  he  was  the  chairman 
oj  die  tariff  committee  of  this  chamber  and  had  various  newspapers 
publish  such  news,  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  not  and  is  not  even 
a  member  of  our  tariff  committee.  The  board  of  directors  of  our 


SCHEDULE   A.  285 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

chamber  did  not  see  fit  to  ratify  his  ?elf-appointment,  which  was 
also  contrary  to  the  dispositions  contained  in  the  bv-laws  of  our 
chamber.  These  were  the  reasons,  and  you  certainly  understand 
now  that  it  would  have  been  hard  for  Mr.  Mariani  to  explain  why  he 
could  not  appear  as  the  representative  of  our  chamber  before  your 
honorable  committee,  if  true  explanations  should  have  followed  his 
previous  statements. 

Trusting  that  your  honorable  committee  will  give  our  declarations 
its  kind  consideration,  we  beg  to  offer  our  sincere  thanks  in  advance. 
Respectfully, 

THE  ITALIAN  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  IN  NEW  YORK, 

LUIGI  SOLARI,  President. 

BRIEF  OF  NEW  YORK  METAL  CEILING  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  February  1,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  It  has  been  brought  to  our  notice  that  an  effort  is  now  being 
made  before  your  committee  on  behalf  of  some  importers  of  olive  oil 
from  Italy,  France,  and  other  points,  to  equalize  the  differential  of 

10  cents  per  gallon  which  now  exists  in  the  duty  collected  on  olive 

011  when  brought  in  in  small  containers  of  less  than  5  gallons  each. 
We  understand  that  the  present  dutv  is  40  cents  per  gallon  when 

brought  in  in  bulk,  and  50  cents  per  gallon  when  brought  in  in  small 
cans,  bottles,  etc.,  in  which  the  oil  is  retailed.  We  are  informed  that 
the  majority  of  importers,  if  their  convenience  an:l  interest  alone  are 
consulted,  would  very  much  prefer  to  import  olive  oil  in  the  con- 
tainer in  which  it  is  to  be  finally  sold,  for  the  reason  that  the  work 
of  packing  the  oil  as  well  as  the  manufacture  of  the  containers  can 
be  done  much  cheaper  abroad  than  here. 

We  think  it  safe  to  say  that  the  immediate  effect  of  leveling  this 
differential  would  be  to  at  once  cause  a  complete  cessation  of  all 
imports  in  bulk.  The  result  of  this  would  be  that  thousands  of  Amer- 
ican workmen  now  engaged  not  only  in  packing  this  oil  in  the  pack- 
ages in  which  it  is  to  be  distributed,  but  also  engaged  in  the  work  of 
making  the  containers  themselves,  bottles,  cans,  etc.,  would  be  imme- 
diately thrown  out  of  work.  A  very  considerable  percentage  of  the 
oil  imported  in  containers  comes  in  m  tin  cans,  and  a  very  considera- 
ble portion  of  our  own  business  here  is  the  printing  of  the  lables  and 
decorating  the  tin  plate  itself,  out  of  which  the  olive  oil  cans  are  made. 

The  artists  and  lithographers  that  we  employ  are  paid  much  higher 
rates  of  wages  than  the  corresponding  rates  existing  in  France,  Italy, 
or  any  of  the  countries  where  such  work  is  done.  We  desire  particu- 
larly to  call  your  attention  to  the  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Geo.  R. 
Meyercord,  representing  the  National  Association  of  Employing 
Lithographers,  before  your  committee  a  week  or  two  back,  as  to  the 
comparative  cost  of  lithography  in  this  country  and  in  Germany.  All 
that  Mr.  Meyercord  testified  to  with  regard  to  the  difference  in  cost 
and  difference  in  wages  with  respect  to  this  country  and  Germany 
is  true  in  conjunction  with  the  lithograph  work  on  the  tin  plate  used 
for  these  cans,  and  the  competition  we  would  be  subject  to  from 


286  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  38— OLIVE  OIL. 

lithograph  workers  in  Italy  would  be  worse  even  than  the  lithogra- 
phers of  Germany,  for  the  reason  that  the  wages  paid  in  Italy  where 
most  of  this  work  is  done,  is  lower  even  than  that  paid  in  Germany. 
We  have  been  at  considerable  cost  and  some  years  of  labor  in  work- 
ing up  this  business,  and  even  under  the  differential  which  now  favors 
us  wfth  wages  in  Italy  one-quarter  of  what  they  are  here  we  find  it 
difficult  to  meet  the  Italian  competition,  and  even  to-day  large  quan- 
tities of  oil  is  brought  in  hi  decorated  tin  cans  direct  from  Italy,  all 
of  which  work  could  be  as  well  done  here.  All  that  we  have  stated 
is  equally  true  with  regard  to  the  manufacture  of  the  glass  bottles 
and  everything  else  that  enters  into  this  trade. 

You  will  observe  from  the  foregoing  that  we  are  not  specially  inter- 
ested in  the  amount  of  duty  so  collected,  but  would  like  to  urge  upon 
your  committee  the  importance  of  maintaining  or  even  increasing 
the  differential  to  which  we  have  referred. 
Yours  truly, 

NEW  YORK  METAL  CEILING  Co., 
LEE  McCALLUM,  President. 

LA  MANNA,  AZEMA  &  FARNAN,  ET.  AL.,  ASK  FOR  REDUCTION 
OF  CERTAIN  DUTIES. 

XEW  YORK,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  Kef  erring  to  revision  of  the  present  tariff  and  to  Schedule  A, 
covering  olive  oil,  the  undersigned  respectfully  submit  the  following: 

Edible  olive  oil. — The  bill  as  passed  last  year,  and  which  was 
vetoed  by  the  President,  called  for  olive  oil  in  bottles,  jars,  kegs,  or 
other  packages  containing  less  than  5  gallons  at  30  cents  per  gallon. 
\o  exception  is  taken  to  this. 

The  same  bill  stated:  Olive  oil,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this 
act.  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

This  would  cover  packages  covering  5  gallons  or  more. 

We  earnestly  and  strongly  protest  against  an  ad  valorem  duty  on 
olive  oil  for  the  following  reasons: 

It  is  impossible  for  even  an  expert  to  correctly  appraise  the  value 
of  this  article,  owing  to  the  numerous  qualities,  shading  from  infe- 
rior to  superior,  resulting  in  a  gradation  of  values  that  can  only  be 
approximated. 

Also,  the  wide  fluctuating  character  of  the  market,  depending  upon 
crops,  supply  and  demand,  and  even  possibilities  of  the  following 
crop. 

Also,  that  with  the  honest  declaration  of  the  importer  as  to  actual 
cost  and  the  sincere  desire  and  best  efforts  of  examiners  and  appraisers 
to  establish  true  value,  there  could  but  result  disagreement,  annoy- 
ance, and  possibly  unpleasant  controversy  and  a  corresponding 
dilliculty  in  detecting  undervaluation. 

In  addition,  an  ad  valorem  duty  would  entail  great  hardship  upon 
America n  dcaleis  in  olive  oil.  owing  to  the  fact  that  purchases  are 
usually  made  when  the  crop  is  gathered,  said  purchases  are  carried 


SCHEDULE   A.  287 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

abroad  and  shipped  during  the  year  according  to  contracts  made  at 
time  of  purchase. 

With  an  ad  valorem  duty  the  American  importer  could  not  make 
sales  for  gradual  delivery  during  the  year,  as  the  question  of  dutiable 
value  would  remain  open. 

The  average  value  of  the  olive  oil  in  packages  over  5  gallons  is  150 
francs  per  100  kilos  f.  o.  b.  steamer  at  the  foreign  port.  „ 

The  proposed  rate  of  20  per  cent  on  150  francs  would  amount  to 
30  francs,  or  $5.79  per  100  kilos.  (100  kilos  equals  29.15  gallons; 
$5.79  divided  by  29.15  gallons  equals  19.86  cents  per  gallon.) 

We  pray  the  duty  on  packages  of  5  gallons  or  more  be  made  20 
cents  per  gallon,  which  is  the  equivalent  of  20  per  cent  on  olive  oil 
at  150  francs  per  100  kilos. 

This  would  give  the  United  States  Treasury  the  same  revenue; 
would  enable  business  to  be  continued  as  it  has  been  for  many  years, 
and  prevent  undervaluation  and  the  very  serious  annoyances  cited 
above  between  importers  and  United  States  appraisers. 

This  duty  of  20  cents  per  gallon  on  olive  oil  hi  bulk  would  be  in 
keeping  with  the  duty  of  30  cents  per  gallon  on  small  packages. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

LA  MANNA,  AZEMA  &  FARNAN, 

(And  20  others.) 

PARAGRAPH  39. 

Peppermint  oil,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound. 
See  Verona  Chemical  Co.,  page  71. 

PARAGRAPH  40. 

Seal,  herring,  whale,  and  other  fish  oil,  including  sod  oil,  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  eight  cents  per  gallon. 

For  fish  oils,  see  Robert  Badcock,  page  288;  Capt.  N.  Hibberd,  page  294;  Black 
Horn  Leather  Co.,  page  296;  W.  &  S.  Job  &  Co.,  page  298. 

FISH  OILS. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  S.  GREENE,  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr.  GREENE.  I  hope  there  will  be  no  precedent  established  by  what 
I  do.  I  want  to  speak  in  regard  to  the  sperm-oil  industry.  It  is  an 
industry  that  is  in  the  district  I  represent  and  represented  largely  by 
New  Bedford  capital  on  the  Pacific  coast  as  well  as  New  Bedford  itself 
in  the  sperm-oil  industry. 

There  is  quite  a  difference  between  sperm  oil  and  whale  oil.  Under 
the  present  duty  they  are  both  covered  alike,  8  cents  per  gallon.  I 
think  most  people  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  whale-oil  industry 
seem  to  class  them  both  alike.  It  is  more  in  competition  with  foreign 
capital  than  most  any  other  industry  in  the  oil  line.  The  crews  are 
paid  in  shares  of  catches  obtained  by  joint  company  of  owners  and 
crew.  We  think  that  is  a  fair  method,  the  owners  paying  all  expenses. 
The  business  has  decreased  of  late  years,  and  if  the  duties  do  not  stop 
importations  now,  lesser  duties  will  enable  foreign  capital  to  supply 
our  markets  at  the  lower  price  of  foreign  labor.  It  would  be  no  more 
than  justice  to  rank  sperm  oil  by  itself  at  a  rate  of  duty  for  goods  of 
no  more  value.  Olive  oil  is  very  much  more  protected  than  even 
sperm  oil.  There  is  a  shore  whaling  station  to  be  granted  bv  the 


288  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

Mexican  Government  on  the  Pacific  coast,  which  will  no  doubt  seek 
a  market  here  as  easy  of  access.  And  the  British  vice  consul  of  Bos- 
ton has  recently  made  a  request  for  statistics  of  the  whaling  business 
in  Massachusetts.  It  looks  as  if  he  were  making  this  inquiry  for  the 
purpose  of  a  market  for  large  quantities  of  wnale  oil  obtained  at 
Norwegian  stations  located  all  over  the  world,  and  they  wish  to  obtain 
a  market  here.  In  justice  to  the  sperm  whale  men  of  my  section,  I 
think  there  should  be  more  consideration  given  to  the  sperm-oil 
industry  as  distinct  from  the  industry  as  made  now  under  the  line  of 
whale  oil  alone. 

I  recollect  in  my  early  boyhood  days  when  sperm  oil  and  whale  oil 
were  used  for  lighting  purposes,  that  my  folks  used  whale  oil  because 
sperm  oil  was  too  high  for  use.  It  has  been  reduced  greatly  hi  price 
since,  but  it  is  still  an  industry  that  needs  to  be  preserved  and  to  be 
cared  for, 

I  trust  that  the  committee  will  take  into  consideration  the  impor- 
tance of  the  sperm-oil  industry  by  itself  as  a  distinct  industry  that 
should  be  considered.  I  may  submit  later,  from  some  of  the  people 
interested  that  are  not  here  to-day,  some  facts  that  I  would  like  to 
place  before  you  for  the  information  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  very  glad  to  have  them  if  they  come  in 
before  the  printed  hearings  are  closed. 

Mr.  GREENE.  I  will  see  that  they  do. 

STATEMENT  OF  ROBERT  BADCOCK,  JR.,  REPRESENTING  W.  &  S. 
JOB  &  CO.  (COD  OIL),  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  Mr.  liobert  Badcock,  jr., 
representing  W.  &  S.  Job  &  Co.  Is  Mr.  Badcock  here  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  If  the  committee  please,  I  am  addressing  myself 
to  fish  oils,  contained  in  paragraph  40  of  Schedule  A;  cod  oil  imported 
from  Newfoundland  and  not  especially  paragraphed,  but  listed  under 
fish  oils,  paragraph  40,  bearing  the  trade  name  "Newfoundland  cod 
oil,"  and  distinguished  from  domestic  cod  oil  by  its  name. 

The  removal  of  the  present  duty  of  8  cents  per  gallon  on  this  article 
is  recommended  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  Because  to  produce  the  best  results,  cod  oil  is  required  by 
tanners  of  leather  in  certain  tannages,  such  as  domestic  chamois, 
patent  leather,  lace  leather,  harness  leather,  and  belting  leather. 
(See  Exhibits  A,  B,  C.  etc.) 

Second.  Because  this  oil  can  not  be  produced  in  the  United  States. 
(See  Exhibits  A,  B.  C,  etc.) 

Third.  Because  there  is  no  duty  on  this  oil  going  into  the  United 
Kingdom,  therein-  giving  that  country,  which  is  a  large  user  of  this 
oil  in  similar  tannages,  a  distinct  advantage  over  the  American  manu- 
facturer in  competing  for  export  business.  (See  Customs  Tariff  of 
United  Kingdom.) 

Fourth.  Because  the  present  duty  of  8  cents  per  gallon,  added  to 
the  primary  cost  of  cod  oil,  makes  it  a  very  expensive  oil,  and  when 
the  price  advances  beyond  a  certain  figure 'the  tanners  are  obliged  to 
use  other  oils  not  so  good  for  their  purpose,  and  it  tempts  unscrupulous 
dealers  to  adulterate  pure  Newfoundland  cod  oil,  to  the  tanners' 
detriment. 


SCHEDULE  A.  289 

PARAGRAPH  4O— FISH  OILS. 

Cod  oil  imported  from  Newfoundland  is  an  oil  rendered  by  natural 
heat  solely  from  the  livers  of  the  cod  and  is  not  made  from  any  other 
part  of  the  codfish  and  can  not  be  produced  in  the  United  States,  as 
there  are  certain  peculiar  properties  contained  therein  which  are  not 
found  in  domestic  cod  oil.  Further,  the  amount  of  domestic  cod  oil 
is  very  insignificant  compared  with  the  quantity  of  cod  oil  required 
by  the  leather  trade. 

It  is  quite  impossible  to  estimate  the  increase  in  imports  which 
would  result  from  the  removal  of  the  present  duty,  but  it  should  be 
noted  that  Newfoundland  ships  to  the  United  Kingdom  alone,  where 
there  is  no  duty,  about  525,000  gallons  per  year,  and  a  large  per 
centage  of  this  would  be  imported  into  this  market  were  it  not  for 
the  excessive  tariff.  The  total  revenue  received  from  the  whole  im- 
portation is  very  small,  and  by  removing  the  duty  the  public  in 
general  would  benefit,  as  it  would  lessen  the  cost  of  production  of  all 
leathers  in  which  cod  oil  is  used. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Pardon  me;  I  would  like  to  know  your  business. 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  I  am  in  the  oil  business;  an  importer. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  You  are  an  importer  of  oil  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

The  importations  into  the  United  States  for  consumption  and  the 
assessed  duties  on  cod  oil  for  the  years  ending  June  30,  1910,  1911, 
1912,  from  all  countries,  are  as  follows: 


Gallons. 

Value. 

Duty. 

Year  ending  June  30  — 
1910                                                  

658,640 

$167,803 

$52  691  20 

1911            ..          

596,847 

182,238 

47,  747.  77 

1912.  .  . 

463,961 

172,842 

37,116.94 

It  is  not  possible  to  get  records  of  previous  years,  as  prior  to  August 
6,  1909,  cod  oil  was  in  the  general  classification  of  fish  oil,  and  was  not 
given  special  mention.  (See  Table  No.  15,  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor,  1910-11.) 

By  comparing  the  imports  in  the  years  1910,  1911,  and  1912  it  will 
be  noted  that  whereas  in  1910  there  were  658,640  gallons  imported, 
valued  at  $167,803,  in  1911  there  were  596,487  gallons,  or  61,793 
gallons  less  than  1910,  with  a  valuation  of  $16,435  more  than  the 
imports  of  1910. 

Again,  in  1912,  the  quantity  was  reduced  still  further  by  132,886 
gallons  and  less  than  1910  by  184,679  gallons,  the  value  of  which  was 
$172,842,  or  $5,039  more  in  value  than  the  1910  imports,  although  the 
quantity  imported  in  1912  was  184,679  gallons  less  than  the  quantity 
imported  in  1910. 

These  figures  are  extracted  and  compiled  from  Table  15  of  the 
Foreign  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States,  as  compiled 
by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

It  is  suggested  that  cod  oil  be  specifically  listed  or  paragraphed  as 
cod  oil  (inedible)  for  leather-manufacturing  purposes  only,  and  made 
solely  from  cod  livers,  instead  of  at  present,  under  the  paragraph  of 
"Whale,  seal,  and  other  fish  oils." 

We  have  no  suggestions  to  make  as  to  the  betterment  of  the  ad- 
ministrative features  of  the  present  law  as  relating  to  Schedule  A 
and  are  quite  satisfied  with  and  approve  of  the  present  methods. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 19 


290 


TABLET   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

We  would  add  that  the  value  of  imports  into  Newfoundland  from 
the  United  States  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1911,  were  valued  at 
$4,604,382.  The  total  exports  from  Newfoundland  to  the  United 
States 'for  the  same  period  amounted  to  but  $1,380,935.  Further, 
during  this  same  period  the  imports  from  the  United  States  to  New- 
foundland were  very  much  greater  than  those  from  Great  Britain  to 
Newfoundland. 

Imports  into  Newfoundland  from  the  United  States  were  as  follows : 

[Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  of  the  United  States,  1910-11,  p.  1101.] 

Year  ending  June  30— 

1907..     i $2,920,349 

1908 3,587,748 

1909 3,939,643 

1910 - 4,074,802 

1911                                      4,  604,  382 

1912 4,  586, 422 

Exports  to  the  United  States  from  Newfoundland  were  as  follows : 

[Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  of  the  United  States,  1911,  pp.  204-207.J 

Year  ending  June  30— 

1907 $1,478,259 

1908 1, 169,  060 

1909 1,148,075 

1910 1,  229,  688 

1911 1, 380,  935 

The  principal  imports  into  Newfoundland  from  the  United  States 
for  the  following  years  are  as  follows: 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Flour: 
1907  l>bls. 

98,916 
98,  758 

$393.  125 
499,544 
341,543 
323,  740 
398,814 
188,  493 

69,  207 
68.229 
40.  929 
95,261 
54,804 
92,305 

45,  575 
77,  259 
59,725 
81,950 
89,814 
90,814 

125,911 
114.882 
95,  807 
115,519 
115,695 
129,423 

23,021 
27,  980 
39,  423 
50,044 
71,322 
85,324 

260,  880 
313,  140 
320.580 
347.922 
401  ,  898 
347,400 

Bacon,  ham,  and  pork: 
1907  pounds.. 
1908  do.... 
1909                    do 

4,190,243 
7.133,252 
5,  618,  937 
4,672,453 
5.688.917 
6,979,044 

427,184 
850,847 
551.800 
316.106 
457,545 
773,703 

1,081,431 
1,324,296 
1,127,183 
1,323.603 
1,486,206 
1,484,477 

22,912 
49,230 
13,830 
86,  405 
147,  384 
116,807 

3,899,250 
5,  599,  773 
5,213.723 
6,532,214 
6,  678,  770 
6,  580,  103 

515,315 
408,472 
390,091 
156,551 
453,047 
506,435 

$352,514 
597,365 
437,969 
479,096 
597,882 
652,321 

40.426 
78,720 
54,958 
38,508 
53,033 
75,863 

89,  103 
103,574 
110,  530 
137,  184 
129,075 
134,  625 

1,730 
3,390 
855 
6,069 
11,229 
7,620 

145,891 
221,475 
193,036 
296,  407 
287,850 
292,811 

47,467 
44,261 
35,349 
17,  545 
62,165 
78,169 

1908                     do 

1909  do.... 
1910  do  

72,  214 
61,927 
72,  895 
36,718 

20.  388 
17.510 
12.040 
25.  325 

1910  do 

1911  do  

1911                    do 

1912  do.... 

1912                     do 

Coal: 
1907  tons.. 
190*  do.... 

Lard: 
1907   do 

1908                     do 

190'J  do... 

1900                     do 

1910  do 

1910                    do 

1911  po 

13,980 
23,  173 

476,321 
889,403 
704,  583 
919,200 
974,458 
1,015,730 

030,  584 
592,  013 
495.009 
504,552 
554.397 
595,  445 

21,985 

23,  117 
32,  099 
41.033 
58.  349 

1911                    do 

1912  do... 

1912                    do 

Cotton  cloths: 
1907   .       .        vards 

Kerosene  oil: 
1907  gallons.. 
1908                    do 

190S  do.,.. 

1909  do.... 

1909                    do 

1910  do.... 

1910                    do 

1911  do... 

1911                    do 

1912  do 

1912  do.... 

Cottonseed  oil: 
1907  pounds.. 
1908  do.... 

1909                     do 

Leathers: 
1907  poii  i  Is.. 
1908     do 

1909  do.... 

1910  do.... 
1911  do.. 

1910  do 

1911                    do 

1912  do 

1912  do.... 
Sugar: 
1907  do.... 

Bools  and  shoos: 
1907  pairs.. 
190S                      do 

1908  do... 
1909                     do 

1909  .|,  .... 

1910  ,\( 

1910  do... 
1911                    do 

1911  di 

1912...                ,!, 

07.808 
.5,  274.  470 

1912  do.... 

Tobacco: 
1907                    do 

Beef: 

1907  pounds 

190S                      ,  (i 

4,749.770 

4.  c,i;:i.  300 

1908  do... 
1909                       do 

1:  111:1                       i  o 

I'.'lfl  till'.'.'. 

5.oos.333 

">.  V>0.  V50 
5,077,404 

1910                     do 

I'.H  1  <  o 

1911  do... 
1912  do.... 

1"|J  ,jn  

SCHEDULE  A.  291 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

Furthermore,  on  the  free  list  of  Newfoundland  is  noted  the  fol- 
lowing: 

Flour,  cottonseed  oil,  boracic  and  acetic  acid,  many  lines  of  ma- 
chinery, hides,  corn,  kerosene  oil,  lines  and  twines,  motor-boat 
engines,  wheat,  and  many  other  articles,  all  of  which  are  exported  to 
Newfoundland  from  the  United  States. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Mr.  Badcock,  do  you  believe  bv  reducing  the  duty 
as  proposed  in  this  bill  from  8  cents  to  5  cents  a  gallon  the  importations 
would  increase  only  to  659,000  pounds,  as  we  stated  in  our  caucus 
copy? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  I  did  not  see  that. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Or  do  you  think  the  imports  would  increase  still 
more? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  quite  sure  they  would. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  A  reduction  in  the  tariff  from  8  cents  to  5  cents 
would  increase  the  imports  far  more  than  shown  in  our  estimates  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  It  would,  because  the  chief  trouble  we  have  in  the 
matter  of  this  oil  is  adulteration,  and  we  know  for  a  fact  that  unscrupu- 
lous dealers,  of  which  there  are  many  in  this  country,  have  adulterated 
this  oil  and  sold  it  at  the  same  price  as  the  imported.  The  tanner 
has  no  way  of  finding  it  out  until  he  dresses  his  leather  with  it,  when 
it  is  too  late  in  many  cases. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  would  like  to  know  a  little  more  about  your 
business.  Do  you  import  oil  to  sell  to  tanners? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  Yes,  sir;  we  import  oil  to  sell  to  tanners. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  At  what  price  do  you  sell  it  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  You  mean  the  market  to-day  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  Forty-three  cents. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  you  advocating  that  this  shall  be  put  on  the 
free  list  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  We  are,  with  the  help  of  the  tanners.  The  tanners 
have  asked  us  as  importers  to  see  what  we  could  do  to  have  this  tariff 
reduced. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  idea  is  to  reduce  the  price  at  which  you 
sell  it  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  It  certainly  is. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  To  the  extent  of  the  duty,  8  cents  per  gallon,  if  the 
reduction  be  that  much. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  will  you  be  any  better  off  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  We  will  not  be  any  better  off  except  we  will  get  a 
very  much  larger  trade.  That  is  our  main  point. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  acting  with  the  tanners  in  this 'matter  ? 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  I  have  presented  exhibits  here  from  several  of  the 
tanners. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  All  I  want  to  know  is  why  you  are  here. 

Mr.  BADCOCK.  These  exhibits  from  the  tanners,  together  with  my 
statement,  will  show. 

The  testimony  of  the  witness  was  furnished  in  the  shape  of  a  brief 
signed  by  tlu  following  firms:  W.  &  S.  Job  &  Co.,  per  Kobert  Bad- 
cock,  jr.;  Bowring  &  Co.,  Chas.  W.  Bowring,  Director;  New  York, 
Newfoundland  &  Halifax  Steamship  Co.  (Ltd.);  Harvey  &  Outer- 


292 


TABIFF  HEAEINGS. 
PABAGBAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 


bridge,  per  R.  Harvey;  National  Oil  &  Supply  Co.,  Arthur  Phillips, 
President;  Dooner  &  Smith  Co.,  James  J.  Dooner,  President;  New- 
ark Chamois  Works,  F.  P.  Chapot,  Manager;  National  Red  Oil  & 
Soap  Co.,  C.  P.  Gulick,  Treasurer;  Max  Hertz,  per  Hass;  Stengel  & 
Rothschild;  National  Oil  Products  Co.,  R.  Bambinger,  Secretary; 
Blanchard  Bro.  &  Lane,  by  M.  T.  Gay,  President. 

EXHIBIT  A. 
[Stengel  &  Rothschild,  tanners  and  manufacturers  of  patent  enameled  and  fancy  leather.] 

NEWARK,  N.  J.,  December  26,  1912. 
W.  &  S.  JOB  &  Co.,  68  Broad  Street,  Jfew  York  City. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  understand  that  there  is  to  be  a  hearing  in  Washington  on  the 
6th  of  January  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  regarding  duties  on  oils  and 
chemicals  such  as  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  leather.  We  are  especially  interested 
in  the  duties  on  Newfoundland  cod  oil,  such  as  we  have  been  purchasing  from  you. 
We  would  like  very  much  to  have  you  use  your  best  efforts  to  have  this  duty  reduced 
as  much  as  possible.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  use  domestic  cod  oil  on  the  class  of 
leather  which  we  manufacture,  as  we  have  tried  it  over  and  over  again  without  success, 
there  being  certain  properties  in  it  which  makes  it  unsuitable  for  our  work.  We  con- 
eider  this  oil  in  the  nature  of  a  raw  material  which  we  use  in  the  manufacture  of  our 
leather,  and  have  always  believed  that  such  goods  as  enter  into  the  use  of  any  product 
manufactured  in  this  country  should  be  taxed  as  little  as  possible.  Furthermore 
there  are  times  when  the  domestic  catch  is  a  failure  or  limited  in  quantity,  and  at 
such  times  the  opportunity  is  used  to  drive  prices  up  to  the  highest  point.  We  hope 
you  will  use  your  best  efforts  to  have  the  duty  on  this  oil  reduced,  and  trusting  that 
you  will  meet  with  success,  we  remain, 

Very  truly,  yours,  STENGEL  &  ROTHSCHILD. 

EXHIBIT  B. 

[F.  S.  Walton  Co.,  oil  manufacturers,  importers,  exporters,  and  jobbers.] 

PHILADELPHIA,  December  31, 1912. 

Messrs.  W.  &  S.  JOB  &  Co., 

68  Broad  Street,  New  York. 

GENTLEMEN:  There  are  four  reasons  which  we  can  cite  why  the  duty  on  Newfound- 
land cod  oil  for  commercial  uses  should  be  abolished,  these  reasons  being  as  follows: 
First.  It  is  the  only  pure  cod  oil  on  the  market. 
Second.  It  is  used  by  the  best  and  largest  tanners. 

Third.  It  does  not  conflict  with  a  domestic  cod  oil,  as  it  is  greatly  superior. 
Fourth.  It  would  compel  receivers  of  domestic  oil  to  sell  their  oil  pure,  instead  of 
it  being  the  product  of  livers  of  several  other  fish,  as  at  present. 
Yours,  truly, 

F.  S.  WALTON  Co.. 
GEORGE  T.  EDGE,  Treasurer. 

Increase  in  exports  United  States  to  Newfoundland,  years  ending  June  SO,  1907  and  1912. 


Articles. 

Value. 

Increase. 

1907 

1912 

Agricultural  implements  

$228 
12.761 
45.  354 
64.121 
So'.  528 
32,984 
123.411 
92.507 
23.  021 
266.  880 
352.514 
40.426 
46.753 
145.  891 
42,355 
103,536 

$2,320 
23,365 
74,430 
149,043 
207,  507 
81,078 
431,832 
187,  166 
85,324 
347.460 
652.  321 
75,  863 
156,  653 
292.811 
83,911 
225,  858 

$2,092 
10,604 
29,086 
84,922 
121,979 
48,094 
308,421 
94,659 
62,303 
80,580 
299,707 
35,437 
119,900 
136,920 
41,556 
122,312 

Cars,  carriages,  and  vehicles  

Chemicals,  drugs,  fives,  mi'!  medicines  

Wearing  appurel  

Cotton  manufactures  (all  other  j  

Fruits  and  nuts  

Machinery  

Other  machinery  

Hoots  and  shoes  

Beef,  salted  

Bacon,  hams,  and  pork  .  .  . 

Lard  

Other  meat  and  dairy  product-; 

Refined  sugar  

Manufactures  of  wood  

All  other  articles  

SCHEDULE   A.  293 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

EXHIBIT  C. 
(Newark  Chamois  Co.,  manufacturers  of  oil-tanned  washable  chamois  leathers.] 

NEWARK,  N.  J.,  Januarys,  1913. 
Messrs.  DOONER  &  SMITH  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  understand  there  is  to  be  a  hearing  before  Congress  relative  to  a 
change  in  the  duty  on  leather  manufacturers' products,  and  would  respectfully  ask  that 
you  use  your  best  endeavors  to  have  the  duty  on  Newfoundland  cod  oil  removed 
entirely  or  reduced  materially,  as  we  firmly  believe  that  we  should  have  our  cod  oil 
free  from  duty.  It  is  our  sole  tanning  material  in  the  manufacture  of  chamois  skins. 
This  business  has  met  with  very  little  success  in  the  United  States  on  account  of 
the  great  competition  we  are  obliged  to  meet  from  abroad.  The  cost  of  labor  here  has 
been  fully  three  times  what  it  is  in  England,  France,  and  Germany. 

Thanking  you  for  any  interest  you  might  take  in  this  matter  in  our  behalf,  we  re- 
main, 

Yours,  truly,  NEWARK  CHAMOIS  Co., 

Per  FRANK  P.  CHAPOT,  Manager. 

EXHIBIT  D. 

MILWAUKEE,  Wis.,  January  S,  191S. 
BOWRING  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

GENTLEMEN:  Your  letter  of  December  28  at  hand  inquiring  why  we  use  Newfound- 
land oil.    We  find  this  oil  to  be  more  pure  and  that  it  does  not  oxidize  as  readily  as 
the  domestic  product.     It  penetrates  the  leather  better  and  does  not  spew. 
Yours,  truly, 

PFISTER  &  VOGEL  LEATHER  Co., 
JOHN  W.  MAPEL. 


EXHIBIT  E. 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO,  January  4,  191S. 
BOWRING  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

GENTLEMEN:  Replying  to  yours  of  the  28th  relative  to  cod  oil.  we  wish  to  state  that 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  use  the  domestic  oil,  owing  to  its  impurities. 

In  the  manufacture  of  patent  leather  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  oil  that  has  a  low 
cold  test,  otherwise  the  leather  will  bloom. 

The  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  bill  removed  practically  all  of  the  duty  on  leather.  This 
was  done  with  the  supposed  understanding  that  duties  would  be  lowered  on  every- 
thing that  went  into  the  manufacture  of  leather.  This,  however,  was  not  done,  as 
on  some  articles,  namely,  quebracho  extract,  the  duty  was  raised. 

We  do  not  believe,  however,  the  foregoing  is  any  argument,  the  only  thing  being 
that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  use  any  but  Newfoundland  cod  oil  in  our  business. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

THE  CLEVELAND  TANNING  Co., 
H.  N.  HILL,  General  Manager. 

STATEMENT  OF  CAPT.  N.  HIBBEED,  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL. 

Mr.  HIBBEKD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
am  here  as  the  representative  and  part  owner  of  the  Tyee  Co.,  of 
San  Francisco.  This  company  is  owned  entirely  by  a  number  of 
merchants  in  that  city,  and  is  the  pioneer  concern  in  America  to 
engage  in  catching  three  species  of  whales  commonly  called  sulphur 
bottoms,  finbacks,  and  humpbacks,  which,  until  we  commenced 
operations  in  1908,  had  never  been  taken  l>y  the  people  of  this 
country.  Therefore,  the  establishment  of  our  plant  represented  an 
entirely  new  American  industry. 


294  TAETPF  HEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  4Q— FISH  OILS. 

The  oil  which  we  get  from  these  whales  is  not  the  whale  oil  of  com- 
merce, because  it  has  no  lubricating  value,  and  therefore  has  to  be 
used  for  a  different  purpose.  The  English  and  Norwegians  have 
been  engaged  in  this  business  for  many  years,  and  knowing  these 
whales  were  very  numerous  along  the  Alaskan  coast,  after  mature 
deliberation  our  company  was  organized  and  $450,000  invested  in 
our  shore  station  and  floating  plant.  We  were  aware  that  our  equip- 
ment would  cost  us  more  than  double  what  our  foreign  competitor 
had  to  pay  for  his.  As  an  illustration,  our  first  whaler  cost  $60,000, 
while  our  competitors  on  Vancouver  Island,  about  200  miles  away, 
only  have  to  pay  $22,000  for  their  steamers,  which  they  have  built 
for  them  in  Norway;  and  hi  addition  to  the  first  cost,  the  wages  paid 
to  our  employees,  including  their  maintenance  will  average  $100  per 
month  each  as  against  $40  without  maintenance  by  the  owners  of 
the  foreign  plant.  But  we  felt  confident  that  the  duty,  which 
amounts  to  practically  $3  a  barrel,  would  enable  us  to  compete  with 
them. 

Unfortunately,  we  found  there  was  no  sale  for  our  product  hi  this 
country,  for,  as  stated  above,  it  has  no  lubricating  value  and  the 
soap  makers  and  tanners  were  afraid  of  it  because  of  the  odor,  and 
we  were  therefore  compelled  to  sell  our  oil  the  first  year  in  Glasgow, 
Scotland,  in  competition  with  the  English  and  Norwegian  whaling 
companies,  at  a  price  which  meant- a  loss  to  us  of  $100,000  for  the 
season's  operation.  All  this  loss  was  not  due  to  the  price  which  we 
could  have  obtained  for  the  oil  had  we  sold  it  in  America  at  the 
English  price  plus  the  greater  part  of  the  duty.  Some  of  it  was 
caused  by  the  fact  that  we  were  new  at  the  business  and  had  much 
to  learn  before  we  could  compete  successfully  with  our  foreign  com- 
petitors, who  had  had  many  years'  experience;  but  we  did  realize 
that  even  after  we  had  mastered  the  details  of  the  business  we  could 
not  hope  for  success  until  we  could  sell  our  products  at  home,  and 
before  we  could  do  this  it  was  necessary  for  us  to  educate  our  possi- 
ble customers.  We  therefore  started  m  on  a  campaign  of  educa- 
tion, which  cost  us  about  $50,000  in  money  and  took  a  great  deal  of 
care  and  trouble.  But  we  finally  succeeded  in  convincing  the  soap 
manufacturers  and  tanners  they  could  use  our  oil  as  a  substitute  for 
tallow. 

The  second  year  we  succeeded  in  selling  about  one-half  of  our  catch, 
which  amounts  to  about  9,000  barrels  per  year,  in  this  country.  We 
did  a  little  bettor  the  next  year,  and  last  year  we  succeeded  in  selling 
our  entire  output  here  in  this  country,  and  have  therefore  devel- 
oped an  entirely  new  business. 

The  past  year  is  the  first  time  we  have  made  any  profit,  and  this 
profit,  even  with  the  protection  afforded  us  by  the  duty  of  8  cents 
per  gallon,  amounted  to  but  $9,000.  Surely  not  an  excessive  return 
on  an  investment  of  §450,000,  especially  when  you  consider  that 
there  was  nothing  written  off  for  depreciation  and  there  was  an  oper- 
ating loss  in  the  first  three  years  of  $150,000  in  addition  to  our  origi- 
nal investment. 

But  wo  have  boon  gradually  working  ahead,  and  two  other  Amer- 
ican concerns  who  have  watched  our  progress,  and  who,  perhaps, 
have  not  been  fully  posted  as  to  the  financial  returns  of  the  venture, 
have  put  in  similar  plants,  one  of  which  has  been  in  operation  two 


SCHEDULE  A.  295 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

years  and  the  other  one  expects  to  commence  work  next  year.  One 
of  these  concerns  has  four  steamers,  which  were  built  in  Seattle  at  a 
cost  of  $60,000  each,  while  their  competitor,  200  miles  away  on  the 
coast  of  Vancouver  Island,  is  using  12  steamers  built  in  Norway  at  a 
cost  of  $22,000  each;  and  in  addition  all  the  American  concerns  are 
importing  lines  and  other  fishing  gear  from  Norway,  paying  a  heavy 
duty  thereon  (which  the  customs  regulations  of  this  country  provide 
for)  because  these  articles  are  not  manufactured  and  can  not  be 
bought  in  this  country,  although  some  of  the  rope  manufacturers  are 
now  endeavoring  to  make  lines  which  we  can  use  and  thus  avoid  the 
necessity  for  this  outlay;  and  if  we  can  continue  in  business  there  is 
no  doubt  but  that  the  American  rope  manufacturers  will  finally  suc- 
ceed in  producing  an  article  which  will  be  satisfactory  for  our  pur- 
poses, and  thus  we  are  indirectly  helping  another  American  industry. 

Now,  does  it  seem  fair  or  right  when  we  have  invested  our  money 
in  these  plants,  feeling  safe  in  doing  so  because  the  duty  gave  us  this 
protection,  and  then  had  energy  and  pride  enough  to  develop  an  en- 
tirely new  industry,  that  you  gentlemen  should  take  it  away  from  us  ? 
Because  if  you  reduce  the  duty  on  these  oils  you  will  absolutely 
destroy  our  investment,  for  we  could  not  possibly  hope  to  operate  in 
competition  with  our  foreign  competitor  just  across  the  border  who 
has  such  advantages  in  the  cost  of  his  plant  and  the  wages  paid  his 
workmen,  and  thus  the  $60,000  a  year  which  we  are  paying  out  for 
wages  and  provisions  to  Americans  would  be  entirely  lost  to  this 
country  and  would  go  to  the  foreign  workmen  in  their  home  countries. 

We  have  just  about  developed  markets  enough  for  our  own  output, 
and  if  other  American  concerns  come  into  the  field  we  will  all  have 
to  continue  our  campaign  of  education  so  as  to  have  a  market  for  our 
goods  at  home,  for  none  of  us  can  hope  to  compete  with  our  foreign 
competitors  while  they  have  such  an  advantage  in  the  cost  of  their 
plants  and  wages  to  their  employees,  and  we  respectfully  urge  you 
not  to  make  it  impossible  for  us  to  continue  but  to  give  us  the  help 
necessary  for  us  to  go  on  and  build  up  this  trade,  especially  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  in  doing  so  you  are  helping  several  American  indus- 
tries, while  on  the  other  hand  a  reduction  in  the  duty  would  be  a 
benefit  to  the  foreigner  only  and  a  handicap  which  would  put  your 
own  countrymen  out  of  business  and  mean  a  direct  loss  to  American 
labor  of  $60,000  a  year  from  this  one  plant.  And  I  am  convinced 
that  the  other  two  plants,  one  of  which  is  now  in  operation,  are  in 
exactly  the  same  situation,  and  their  figures  can  safely  be  added  to 
purs  as  showing  the  loss  which  must  come  to  this  country  if  this 
industry  is  to  be  wiped  out,  while  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  one 
to  be  helped  but  the  foreigner,  in  whom  I  presume  you  are  not 
especially  interested,  and  whose  interests  you  are  not  anxious  to 
protect,  particularly  when  in  so  doing  you  are  working  such  a  great 
hardship  on  a  struggling  industry  which  is  trying  to  develop  a  new 
trade  in  this  country . 

I  trust  that  when  you  come  to  consider  this  question  you  will  bear 
these  facts  in  mind  and  give  us  the  protection  we  ask  for,  to  which 
I  feel  sure  you  will  decide  we  are  entitled.  Thank  you,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  is  the  average  cost  of  one  of  those  plants  ? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  I  know  exactly  what  purs  cost  us — $100,000. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  proportion  of  that  is  embraced  in  the  machinery  ? 


296  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  That  would  be  a  very  difficult  question  to  answer. 
For  instance,  we  have  a  very  large  factory  or  plant  for  reducing  the 
blubber  after  it  is  taken  off  the  whale  and  converting  it  into  oil  and 
converting  the  flesh  into  fertilizer  and  grinding  the  bones,  and  we 
have  our  whaler  and  a  tug  to  go  out  and  tow  the  whales  into  the 
station.  I  do  not  think  I  could  tell  you  exactly  the  different  propor- 
tions. 

Mr.  HULL.  Where  are  your  materials  manufactured  ? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  In  this  country,  all  except  some  particular  parts,  for 
instance  the  gun,  which  we  use  on  the  bow  of  the  whaler,  and  our 
harpoons  and  our  lines  and  bombs,  and  some  other  specialties  which 
the  Norwegians  have  developed. 

Mr.  HULL.  Is  the  machinery  complicated  in  the  main,  or  is  it  more 
or  less  simple  ? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  There  is  nothing  about  it  different  from  other 
machinery.  There  are  many  plants  which  have  been  installed  which 
have  much  more  complicated  machinery. 

Mr.  HULL.  You  do  not  know  about  what  proportion  the  cost  of  the 
machinery  would  comprise  ? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  No,  Ido  not  know;  but  I  could  give  you  the  detailed 
cost  of  everything.  I  happened  to  be  in  the  East,  and  when  these 
hearings  were  announced  my  partners  telegraphed  me  and  asked  me 
to  come  here  and  state  our  views  on  the  matter;  so  I  am  not  very 
well  posted  as  to  the  details. 

Mr.  PETERS.  What  is  the  total  production  of  your  firm  and  of  the 
other  firms  that  you  have  referred  to? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  Our  output  is  9,000  barrels,  and  I  am  under  the 
impression  that  theirs  is  about  the  same. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Barrels? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  Barrels. 

Mr.  PETERS.  How  much  does  that  amount  to  in  gallons? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  There  are  about  50  gallons  to  a  barrel,  and  that 
would  make  450,000  gallons. 

Mr.  PETERS.  What  proportion  of  the  total  consumption  do  you 
produce  ? 

Mr.  HIBBERD.  At  first  we  produced  all  that  was  used  in  this 
country.  When  we  commenced,  wo  could  not  sell  a  barrel  here. 
It  was  all  shipped  abroad.  There  may  have  been  some  shipments 
that  I  do  not  know  anything  about,  but  I  do  know  that  we  went  to 
all  the  principal  users  of  that  sort  of  product,  and  they  would  not 
touch  it.  There  may  have  been  some  of  it  used  in  a  way  that  I  have 
no  knowledge  of,  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  there  was  not  any  of  it  used. 

Mr.  Dixox.  What  is  the  proportion  of  your  labor  cost 'to  the  total 
value  of  your  output  ? 

.Mr.  HIBBEHD.  Just  about  60 'per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  IIiBBKi'.n.  Thank  you. 

BRIEF  IN   BEHALF   OF   THE   BLACK  HORN  LEATHER   CO. 
( CHAMOIS   MANUFACTURERS),  OF  GREAT  BEND,  PA. 

ilack  I  lorn  Leather  Co.  is  interested  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
existing  duty  on  these  oils.     It  is  a  purchaser  and  consumer  of  fish 


SCHEDULE  A.  297 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

and  cod  oils  which  are  required  in  the  production  of  chamois  leather; 
and  is  a  producer  of  sod  oil,  moellon,  and  degras,  as  a  necessary 
sequence  in  the  oil  tannage  of  chamois.  All  these  oils  under  the  exist- 
ing tariff  carry  a  duty  of  8  cents  per  gallon.  Chamois  leather  tannage 
requires  fish  or  cod  oil.  Cod  oil  oxidizes  a  little  more  slowly  than 
otner  fish  oils,  and  hence  is  less  likely  to  burn  skins  in  tanning,  and 
for  that  reason  it  is  extensively  used  in  all  oil  tannage. 

Newfoundland  cod  oil,  whicli  is  the  chief  competitor  of  the  domestic 
cod  oil,  is  controlled  almost  exclusively  by  London  importing  houses 
whose  American  representative  has  appeared  before  your  committee 
in  advocacy  of  placing  Newfoundland  cod  oil  on  the  free  list. 

It  is  admitted  that  Newfoundland  cod  oil  has  maintained  a  more 
uniform  standard  of  quality  than  has  the  domestic  oil,  but  there  has 
been  a  marked  improvement  in  domestic  oil  in  the  last  few  years, 
with  result  that  the  Newfoundland  cod  oil  has  fallen  off  hi  importa- 
tion.1 

It  was  urged  before  the  committee  by  the  representative  of  the 
English  importing  houses  that  Newfoundland  cod  oil,  because  of  its 
acknowledged  superiority,  did  not  come  in  competition  with  domestic 
productions.  This  statement  is  in  error.  The  improvement  in  the 
quality  of  the  domestic  cod  oil  in  the  last  few  years  has  been  marked. 
Mr.  Orth,  of  Harden,  Orth  &  Hastings,  of  Boston,  large  distributors 
of  domestic  cod  and  fish  oil,  is  now  offering  domestic  cod  oil  which  he 
guarantees  to  be  equal  to  any  Newfoundland  cod  oil  on  the  market, 
and  the  experience  of  the  Black  Horn  Leather  Co.  in- the  use  of  domestic 
cod  oil  has  been  exceedingly  satisfactory.  The  reason  the  Black  Horn 
Leather  Co.  as  purchasers  and  consumers  oppose  the  removal  or  low- 
ering the  present  duty  on  cod  and  fish  oil  rests  in  the  belief  that  such 
removal  would  dimmish,  if  not  eliminate,  the  domestic  production, 
and  then  with  no  competition  from  the  domestic  article  the  control  of 
prices  of  Newfoundland  cod  oil  would  be  lodged  with  the  English 
importers.  If  their  suggestion  should  be  adopted  to  remove  all  duty 
from  Newfoundland  cod  oil  and  retain  it  on  any  other  fish  oils  the 
importers'  control  would  be  complete 

The  National  Association  of  Tanners,  who  appeared  before  this 
committee  through  Mr.  Vogel,  made  no  request  whatever  to  have 
the  duty  on  cod  oil  removed.  On  the  contrary,  the  firm  of  Drueding 
Bros.  &  Co.  and  the  Black  Horn  Leather  Co.,  manufacturing  substan- 
tially all  of  the  chamois  made  in  the  United  States,  do  not  favor 
the  lowering  of  the  existing  duty  on  fish  and  cod  oils. 

Inasmuch  as  sod  oil,  moellon,  and  degras  are  necessary  products 
of  oil  tannage,  and  enter  so  largely  into  the  financial  side  of  the  sale 
of  oil-tannage  products,  it  is  necessary  to  ask  for  thorn  the  same 
protection  that  is  accorded  to  cod  and  fish  oils. 

Chamois  production  in  the  United  States  has  not  as  yet  been 
developed  to  any  great  extent,  and  only  the  two  concerns  mentioned 
have  thus  far  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  chamois  leather,  and 
they  require,  hi  order  that  they  may  continue  in  business,  that 
their  products  be  protected  against  the  well-established  foreign 
producers. 

1  See  brief  of  Mr.  Badcock  in  behalf  of  W.  &  S.  Job  Co..  London. 


298  TAKIFP  HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

The  Black  Horn  Leather  Co.,  with  most  of  the  other  oil-tannage 
people,  believe  that  the  best  and  proper  method  of  pioviding  them- 
selves with  an  assured  and  safe  supply  of  cod  and  fish  oil  is  to  develop 
the  American  industry.  They  know  of  no  reason  why  under  the 
present  duty  domestic  cod  oil  will  not  continue  to  improve  in  quality. 
There  are  no  mechanical  or  local  reasons  why  such  improvement 
should  not  take  place  until  the  American  product  becomes  as  uniform 
as  the  Newfoundland  product,  and  they  are  content  to  bear  any 
burden,  if  it  be  considered  a  burden,  in  the  way  of  a  reasonable 
duty  In  order  to  aid  the  American  fisherman  to  establish  himself 
where  he  will  be  safe  from  the  destructive  competition  of  foreign 
fishers  and  English  importers.  We  respectfully  urge  the  retention 
of  the  8-cent  duty  on  all  fish  and  cod  oil,  and  on  sod  oil,  moellon, 
and  degras. 

NOTE. — The  term  "degras"  has  frequently  been  limited  in  legis- 
lative measures  to  wool  grease,  whereas  it  has  as  frequently  in  trade 
been  applied  to  oils  resultant  from  oil  tannage. 

BLACK  HORN  LEATHER  Co.. 

NORMAN  H.  PARKE,  General  Manager. 

ADDITIONAL  BRIEF  OF  W.  &  S.  JOB  &  CO. 

Objection  is  made  to  statements  by  Black  Horn  Leather  Co.  through 
brief  submitted  and  presented  by  Norman  H.  Parke,  general  manager, 
to  revising  duties  in  Schedule  A,  paragraph  No.  40.  For  the  reason 
that  said  statements  in  brief  of  Black  Horn  Leather  Co.  are  not  correct 
and  the  existing  conditions  are  not  as  stated,  and  further,  that  com- 
ments thereon  are  inclined  to  mislead,  rather  than  place  facts  before 
this  committee. 

First.  Newfoundland  cod  oil  is  not  a  competitor  of  domestic  cod 
oil,  as  they  are  materially  different,  and  proof  of  this  statement  is  con- 
firmed by  exhibits  contained  in  brief  of  W.  &  S.  Job  &  Co.  from  direct 
users. 

Second.  Newfoundland  cod  oil  is  not  controlled  by  any  London 
importers,  nor  has  any  London  house  a  branch  office  in  United  States 
for  sale  of  cod  oil,  and  the  statement  made  to  this  effect  in  brief  of 
Black  Horn  Leather  Co.  is  in  error. 

Third.  The  result  of  the  falling  off  in  the  importations  is  due  solely 
to  high  prices  and  not  to  any  improvement  in  the  manufacture  of 
domestic  cod  oil. 

Fourth.  Reduction  or  removal  of  the  duty  on  cod  oil  will  not 
eliminate  or  diminish  the  domestic  production  for  the  reason  that  cod 
oil  is  a  by-product  of  the  codfish,  and  it  is  only  reasonable  to  assume 
that  the  American  fishermen  will  not  forsake  the  fishing  industry  if 
this  duty  is  removed. 

Fifth.  Importers  do  not  control  the  price  of  Newfoundland  cod  oil, 
they  never  did,  have  never  tried,  and  never  shall  be  able  to  accom- 
plish this,  as  there  is  as  much  competition  in  the  primary  market  as  in 
the  selling  market,  moreover,  some  American  firms  have  their  repre- 
sentatives located  in  Newfoundland  who  buy  direct  from  the  fish- 
ermen, and  this  in  itself  establishes  the  fact  that  the  control  of  the 
market  is  not  in  the  hands  of  the  importers. 


SCHEDULE  A.  299 

PARAGRAPH  40— FISH  OILS. 

Sixth.  The  National  Association  of  Tanners,  who  appeared  before 
the  committee,  through  Mr.  August  Vogel,  of  Milwaukee,  did  make 
mention  of  the  duty  on  this  oil  and  recommended  readjustment  of  the 
duty  on  cod  oil.  (See  brief  of  August  Vogel.)  Further,  the  attached 
exhibit  from  Mr.  Vpgel's  firm  clearly  explains  the  position  and  empha- 
sizes the  fact  that  it  should  be  free  of  duty  and  that  his  firm  (Pnster 
&  Vogel  Leather  Co.)  find  the  oil  more  pure,  it  does  not  oxidize  as 
readily  as  domestic,  it  penetrates  the  leather  better,  and  does  not 
spew.  Further,  the  Cleveland  Tanning  Co.  state  it  is  impossible  for 
them  to  use  anything  but  the  Newfoundland  cod  oil  and  will  not  use 
domestic,  owing  to  its  impurities.  (See  letters  under  statement  of 
Robert  Badcook,  jr.,  representing  W.  &  S.  Job  &  Co.,  p.  288.)  Fur- 
ther, Stengel  &  Rothschild  state  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  use  do- 
mestic cod  oil,  and  they  have  tried  it  over  and  over  again  without 
success,  there  being  certain  properties  in  it  which  makes  it  unsuitable 
to  their  work.  (See  letter.)  The  Newark  Chamois  Works,  manufac- 
turers exclusively  of  chamois  and  competitors  of  Black  Horn  Leather 
Co.,  state  it  is  their  sole  tanning  material  and  that  they  should  have 
their  cod  oil  free  of  duty.  (See  letter.) 

Seventh.  It  is  further  stated  in  brief  of  Black  Horn  Leather  Co. 
that,  together  with  Drueding  Bros.  &  Co.,  they  manufacture  sub- 
stantially all  the  chamois  made  in  United  States. 

Eighth.  It  is  pointed  out  to  your  committee  that  no  statement  or 
signature  of  Drueding  Bros.  &  Co.  substantiating  brief  of  Black  Horn 
Leather  Co.  showing  authority  for  quoting  this  firm  is  found  in  brief 
of  Black  Horn  Leather  Co. 

Ninth.  The  tanners,  to  the  extent  of  90  per  cent  or  more,  are  in 
favor  of  the  readjustment  of  this  duty,  and  the  protest  of  only  one 
concern  should  not  have  any  adverse  bearing  as  to  the  retention  of 
this  duty.  (See  brief  of  August  Vogel,  representing  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Leather  Manufacturers.) 

Tenth.  The  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  their  brief  advocate 
the  relief  of  fiscal  burdens  from  all  tanning  materials,  one  of  which 
pure  cod  oil  plays  a  most  important  part,  as  manufacturers  of  certain 
leathers  must  use  it. 

PARAGRAPH  41. 

Opium,  crude  or  unmanufactured,  and  not  adulterated,  containing  nine 
per  centum  and  over  of  morphia,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  pound ;  opium 
of  the  same  composition,  dried,  powdered,  or  otherwise  advanced  beyond 
the  condition  of  crude  or  unmanufactured,  two  dollars  per  pound;  morphia 
or  morphine,  sulphate  of,  and  all-  alkaloids  of  opium,  and  salts  and  esters 
thereof,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ounce;  cocaine,  ecgonine,  and  all  salts 
and  derivatives  of  the  same,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ounce;  coca  leaves, 
five  cents  per  pound;  aqueous  extract  of  opium,  for  medicinal  uses,  and  tinc- 
ture of,  as  laudanum,  and  other  liquid  preparations  of  opium,  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  opium  containing 
less  than  nine  per  centum  of  morphia,  six  dollars  per  pound;  but  preparations 
of  opium  deposited  in  bonded  warehouses  shall  not  be  removed  therefrom 
without  payment  of  duties,  and  such  duties  shall  not  be  refunded:  Pro- 
vided, That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  repeal  or  in 
any  manner  impair  or  affect  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to 
prohibit  the  importation  and  use  of  opium  for  other  than  medicinal  pur- 
poses," approved  February  ninth,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine. 

For  opium,  etc.,  see  Merck  &  Co.,  page  30;  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works,  page  49. 


300  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  42— BABYTES. 
PARAGRAPH  42. 

Baryta,  sulphate  of,  or  barytes,  including  barytes  earth,  unmanufac- 
tured, one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ton;  manufactured,  five  dollars  and 
twenty-five  cents  per  ton. 

BARYTES. 

STATEMENT    OF  H.  J.    KREBS,    PRESIDENT   OF   THE   KREBS 
PIGMENT  &  CHEMICAL  CO. 

Will  you  give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer,  please  ? 

Mr.  KREBS.  H.  J.  Krebs,  president  of  the  Krebs  Pigment  &  Chem- 
ical Co. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Krebs,  we  have  allowed  you  15  minutes. 

Mr.  KREBS.  I  beg  your  pardon,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  say  we  have  allowed  you  15  minutes  hi  which  to 
make  your  statement. 

Mr.  KREBS.  Yes;  I  will  be  brief. 

On  behalf  of  the  Krebs  Pigment  &  Chemical  Co.,  of  Newport,  Del. ; 
the  Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio;  and  the  Beckton  Chem- 
ical Co.,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  who  are  among  the  principal  lithopone 
manufacturers  of  this  country,  the  following  brief  is  submitted, 
referring  to  paragraph  55,  lithopone,  and  paragraph  42,  baryta: 

The  principal  raw  materials  used  in  producing  lithopone  are  crude  baryta  and  zinc 
ores,  or  other  forms  of  zinc,  although  zinc  ore  is  naturally  the  basic  material.  In 
addition  to  the  above,  numerous  other  chemicals  are  also  required,  the  costs  of  which 
are  higher  in  this  country  than  abroad.  Also  in  considering  the  crude  materials  we 
call  your  special  attention  to  baryta,  on  which  there  is  now  a  duty  of  $1.50  per  ton, 
and  which  we  are  obliged  to  import  principally  from  Germany,  owing  to  there  being 
no  reliable  home  supply;  also  zinc  ores,  on  which  a  varying  duty  must  be  paid,  accord- 
ing to  the  zinc  contents. 

Lithopone  is  purely  a  chemical  product  which  contains  barium  sulphate  as  a  com- 
ponent. This  barium  sulphate  must  not  be  confounded  with  native  ground  baryta, 
which  is  also  used  in  the  paint  trade.  Lithopone  is  extensively  used  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  flat  coat  paints,  linoleum,  oilcloth,  and  the  rubber  industries. 

Labor  is  a  factor  which  must  be  considered  in  the  manufacture  of  lithopone,  and  we 
earnestly  request  your  consideration  of  this  item.  For  the  comparative  differences) 
existing  here  and  abroad  we  refer  you  to  House  Report  No.  326,  pages  305  and  370. 

Xo  conditions  have  arisen  since  the  enactment  of  the  present  rate  to  warrant  any 
change  in  the  rate  of  duty  and  we  therefore  urge  that  no  change  be  made,  and  that  the 
existing  rate  of  1J  cents  per  pound  be  continued.  It  is  suggested  to  place  an  ad 
valorem  duty  instead  of  a  specific  rate,  and  we  earnestly  urge  your  careful  considera- 
tion before  allowing  such  a  change.  With  a  specific  rate  of  duty  both  the  manufactur- 
ers and  consumers  know  exactly  what  rate  must  be  paid,  whereas  an  ad  valorem  rate 
open?  the  question  to  endless  discussion  and  consequent  annoyance  on  account  of  the 
continually  fluctuating  change  in  the  selling  prices  both  here  and  abroad. 

There  was  imported  into  this  country  during  the  year  ending  June,  1911  (notwith- 
standing the  present  rate  of  1}  cents  per  pound),  5,409,520  pounds  of  lithopone. 

Special  reference  is  made  to  this  fact  to  show  that  even  under  the  present  rate  of  1J 
cents  per  pound  the  foreign  manufacturers,  especially  the  German^,  are  able  to  com- 
pete successfully  in  this  country,  and  we  believe  that  should  any  reductions  be  made 
in  the  present  rate  it  will  seriously  affect  our  home  production.  It  is  a  well-known 
facMhat  the  markets  of  this  country  are  often  used  as  a  dumping  ground  for  surplus 
foreign  stocks,  especially  from  Germany,  and  we  further  feel  that  any  reduction  in  the 
present  rate  will  only  afford  foreign  manufacturers  a  better  opportunity  to  demoralize 
our  home  markets  at  the  expense  of  the  industry  in  this  country  and  with  the  natural 
disastrous  effect  on  the  labor  employed. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  we  earnestly  request  that  the  present  rate  of  1|  cents  per 
pound  be  continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN'.  Does  any  member  of  the  committee  desire  to  ask 
the  witness  any  questions?  That  is  all. 


SCHEDULE  A.  301 

PARAGRAPH  42— BARYTES. 

STATEMENT  OF  WM.  A.  BTTDDECKE,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  POINT 
MILLING  &  MANUFACTURING  CO.,  MINERAL  POINT,  MO. 

We  venture  to  submit  to  you  the  following  brief  statement  of  facts 
in  relation  to  the  production  of  barytes  in  this  country. 

This  material  is  mined  almost  entirely  in  the  Southern  States, 
there  being  operations  in  Missouri,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  North 
and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Virginia.  As  you  know,  in  Wash- 
ington County,  Mo.,  it  is  the  principal  industry,  and  over  50  per  cent 
of  the  barytes  mined  in  the  united  States  comes  from  Washington 
County.  The  employees  there  do  little  else;  the  men  work  in  the 
mines  and  their  families  clean  and  prepare  the  ore  for  factory  uses. 

This  company  has  a  factory  at  Mineral  Point,  Mo.,  right  at  the  mines 
and  employs  a  full  force  of  men  in  the  production  of  this  material  for 
market,  the  operations  being  of  a  character  that  requires  the  factory 
to  be  run  night  and  day,  or  to  shut  down  completely. 

The  competition  on  this  material  comes  almost  exclusively  from 
Germany,  where  there  are  very  large  mines,  and  with  their  cheap 
labor  it  is  possible  to  produce  at  a  lower  price  than  we  can  here  hi 
this  country  under  present  conditions. 

We  attach  herewith  a  letter  recently  received  by  one  of  our  friends 
in  East  St.  Louis,  and  inclosing  samples,  which  we  are  sending  to 
you  hi  the  original  covers,  and  from  these  is  evident  the  competition 
which  exists  in  this  industry. 

We  would  say  further  that  75  per  cent  of  the  consumption  of  ba- 
rytes is  in  the  Atlantic  seaboard  cities,  and  for  years  the  price  on  the 
American  product  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston  has  been 
at  a  figure  that  the  German  producers  were  willing  to  accept,  and  it 
has  been  a  constant  effort  of  the  American  producers  to  meet  this 
price. 

You  will  note  that  with  the  letter  from  Holland  is  attached  a  sheet 
showing  the  prices  worked  out  into  tons  of  2,000  pounds,  adding  the 
duty  as  at  present,  and  showing  the  net  price,  delivered  Atlantic 
ports,  as  per  quotation. 

Now  our  situation  is  as  follows:  The  average  price  for  the  tiff, 
which  is  the  local  name  for  barytes  ore  in  Washington  County,  is 
$7  per  net  ton  at  the  railroad  to  which  must  be  added  a  small  loading 
charge  and  freight  to  our  factory,  averaging  30  cents  per  ton.  The 
ore  in  manufacturing  shows  a  loss  of  5  per  cent,  or  35  cents  per  ton. 
The  freight  on  the  manufactured  product  from  Mineral  Point  to  New 
York  is  $4.65  per  ton,  A  fair  estimate  of  cost  is  $5.50  per  ton,  mak- 
ing $17.80  per  ton  delievered  New  York  as  against  $17.90  on  the 
foreign  product.  This  shows  an  extremely  small  margin,  as  at  pres- 
ent, and  on  that  we  are  working. 

To  reduce  the  tariff  means  that  every  ton  of  foreign  ore  that  comes 
into  this  country  does  not  simply  mean  ore  ton  more  used  but  dis- 
places a  ton  of  American  mined  and  manufactured  goods,  and  every 
ton  means  the  employment  of  at  least  six  men  in  the  mining,  hauling, 
and  manufacturing.  We  therefore  ask  you  to  use  your  good  offices 
to  prevent  damage  to  an  industry  that  while  not  large  it  is  a  very 
valuable  one  and  can  be  made  still  larger  if  properly  protected,  and 
on  the  other  hand  there  is  no  demand  made  by  any  consumer  of  this 
material  for  a  reduction  in  tariff,  and  that  the  only  real  benefit  hi 


302 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  42— BARYTES. 

having  the  tariff  reduced  will  be  to  some  importing  brokers  at  the 
seaboard. 

We  would  also  state  that  the  mining  and  manufacturing  of  this 
material  is  entirely  free  from  any  consolidation  or  understanding; 
that  competition  is  very  active,  there  being  a  greater  factory  produc- 
tion than  the  consumption  requires;  also  that  the  present  duty  is  not 
prohibitive,  as  import  records  show  that  every  year  a  considerable 
quantity  of  the  German  product  is  brought  to  this  country. 

We  would  also  suggest  that  the  railroad  companies  recognize  the 
foreign  competition,  and  have  been  willing  to  maintain  a  rate  of 
freight  which  works  out  about  40  cents  per  ton  per  mile,  and  is  as 
low  as  we  can  hope  to  obtain,  and,  unlike  the  German  competition, 
we  have  no  water  route  from  this  section  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 
We  therefore  trust  you  will  do  what  you  can  to  help  the  producers 
in  this  section,  and  prevent  the  mining  and  manufacturing  of  this 
material  being  obliterated  by  bringing  into  this  country  more  of  the 
foreign  production. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

POINT  MILLING  &  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
WM.  A.  BUDDECKE,  President. 

[Inclosure.] 

ROTTERDAM,  January  9,  1913. 
Messrs.  GEO.  S.  MEPHAM  &  Co., 

East  St.  Louis,  III. 

DEAR  SIRS:  We  have  pleasure  in  drawing  your  attention  to  a  product  for  which  we 
are  very  well  posted  for  export  to  your  country  and  we  will  be  glad  if  you  will  give  the 
present  your  very  best  attention.  This  product  is  heavy  spar;  or  barytes. 

We  know  that  a  fair  amount  of  business  is  already  done  in  this  product  on  your  side. 
They  have  up  to  this  date  been  buying  from  Hamburg,  but  as  the  sources  of  supply 
are  situated  nearer  to  Rotterdam,  we  are  in  a  position  to  make  you  very  advantageous 
offers  for  shipment  via  our  port,  and  we  trust  that  you  will  not  fail  to  avail  yourselves 
of  this  opportunity. 

The  largest  use  of  the  above-named  articles  is  made  by  manufacturers  of  lithophon, 
white  lead,  and  carpet  manufacturers.  On  account  of  its  very  heavy  weight,  it  serves 
to  add  weight  to  the  products  in  which  it  is  mixed.  It  is  also  used  by  various  other 
chemical  works. 

For  your  guidance  we  have  sent  you  a  sample  of  this  product  and  we  can  but  advise 
you  to  follow  up  the  sale  of  this  stuff  which  \ve  know  to  have  already  found  a  market  in 
the  States. 

We  beg  to  quote  without  engagement: 

Price  per  1,000  kilos  (2,200  pounds)  c.  i.  /.,  at  New    York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and 

Baltimore. 


Value    per     ton 

(United  States 

currency).1 

Grade. 

In  bags. 

In  casks. 

Includ- 

Without 

ing  duty 

duty. 

of  $5.25 

per  ton.1 

Mark*. 

Marks. 

No.  1... 

58 

60 

$12  65 

$17  90 

No.  2... 

48 

50 

10  47 

15  72 

No.  3  

45 

47 

9  82 

15  07 

No.  4  

41 

43 

8.94 

14.19 

1  Ton  of  2,000  pounds. 


SCHEDULE  A.  303 

PARAGRAPH  44— BLANC  FIXE. 

This  heavy  spar  contains  97  to  98  per  cent  BaS04. 

The  price,  in  bags  is  charged  in  the  gross  weight;  when  packed  in  casks  an  allow- 
ance of  3  per  cent  is  made  for  tare  on  the  gross  weight. 

Our  conditions  of  payment  are  net  cash  against  documents,  and  we  will  be  glad 
to  hear  from  you  in  regard  to  the  above  offer. 
Meantime  we  are,  dear  sir,  yours,  truly, 

RUEB  &  GLEICHMAN. 
PARAGRAPH  43. 

Blues,   such  as  Berlin,  Prussian,   Chinese,   and  all  others,   containing 
ferrocyanide  of  iron,  in  pulp,  dry  or  ground,  in  or  mixed  with  oil  or  water, 
eight  cents  per  pound. 
See  Arthur  Somers,  pages  335,  344. 

PARAGRAPH  44. 

Blanc  fixe,  or  artificial  sulphate  of  barytes,  and  satin  white,  or  artificial 
sulphate  of  lime,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

BLANC  FIXE. 

BRIEF  OF  T.   S.   TODD  &  CO.,   CUSTOMHOUSE  BROKERS  AND 
FORWARDERS,    NEW    YORK    CITY. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4,  191S. 
WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  Blanc  fixe  and  satin  white  are  made  in  this  country 
from  a  foreign  raw  material  not  found  here. 

The  price  of  blanc  fixe  during  the  past  10  years  has  been  reduced 
from  $55  to  $39  per  ton. 

The  imports  or  about  6,000,000  pounds  amount  to  about  50  per 
cent  of  the  total  consumption,  therefore  quite  removed  from  a 
monopoly. 

The  present  duty  is  one-half  cent  per  pound  and  provided  for  hi 
paragraph  44. 

Blanc  fixe  and  satin  white  are  made  from  a  natural  product  known 
as  witherite  spar,  found  principally  in  England,  although  other 
sources  of  supply  are  found  in  Germany;  this  material  is  imported 
in  the  rough  state  from  the  mine  in  bulk,  but  not  in  sufficient  quantity 
to  admit  of  any  reduction  hi  the  ocean  freight,  so  that  the  raw  mate- 
rial and  the  finished  article,  blanc  fixe,  pays  practically  the  same 
freight.  This  raw  material  goes  through  an  elaborate  process  of 
manufacture,  and  is  reduced  to  its  commercial  product  by  grinding 
and  successive  treatment  with  muriatic  acid  and  sulphuric  acid, 
both  of  which  acids  cost  considerably  more  in  this  country  than  they 
do  abroad;  as  an  illustration,  in  England  muriatic  acid  is  sold  at 
70  to  75  cents  per  100  pounds,  as  against  $1.20  to  $1.25  per  100 
pounds  here.  In  Germany  sulphuric  acid  can  be  purchased  at  40 
cents  per  100  pounds,  as  against  80  to  85  cents  per  100  pounds  here. 

Actual  production  figures  taken  from  our  manufacturing  records 
show  the  following:  Cost  of  raw  material,  $19.50  per  ton;  labor,  $7 
per  ton;  acids  and  treatment,  $7.50  per  ton;  packing,  $2.50  per  ton; 
total,  $36.50  per  ton;  and  the  finished  material  sells  for  from  $39 
to  $40per  ton. 

In  House  bill  20182,  paragraph  56,  provision  is  made  for  duty  on 
blanc  fixe  and  satin  white  at  one-fourth  cent  per  pound,  equivalent 


304  TABJFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  45— LAMPBLACK. 

to  $5.60  per  English  ton  of  2,240  pounds;  the  price  of  blanc  fixe  in 
England  is  £5  per  ton,  ocean  freight  25s.  per  ton,  total,  $36  per  ton, 
or  $1.61  per  100  pounds,  which  is  less  than  the  American  cost  of 
production. 

The  present  duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  does  not  admit  or  any 
abnormal  profit  to  the  manufacturer,  the  above  figures  indicating  it 
to  be  less  than  7J  per.  cent,  from  which  it  is  manifest  that  a  duty  of 
one-fourth  cent  per  pound  under  present  conditions,  under  which  we 
are  entirely  dependent  on  England  and  Germany  for  our  raw 
material,  would  force  the  American  manufacturer  to  discontinue  its 
production. 

The  present  duty  has  been  in  force  since  1897,  and  the  American 
producer  has  voluntarily  reduced  his  cost  to  the  consumer  30  per  cent, 
which  should  commend  him  to  your  committee  as  justly  worthy  of 
consideration  in  fixing  a  rate  of  duty  which  will  enable  him  to  con- 
tinue a  business  representing  a  very  considerable  amount  of  labor  and 
capital. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  yours,  respectfully, 

T.  S.  TODD, 

For  Providence  Drysalters  Co.,  Providence,  R.  1. 

JOHN  D.  LEWIS, 

Providence,  R.  I. 

PARAGRAPH  45. 

Black,  made  from  bone,  ivory,  or  vegetable  substance,  by  whatever  name 
known,  including  boneblack  and  lampblack,  dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water, 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

LAMPBLACK. 

BKIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  WILCKES,  MARTIN  WILCKES  CO.,  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

Brief  appealing  on  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  lampblack  from  25 
per  cent  to  15  per  cent  under  report  on  Schedule  A,  chemicals,  oils, 
and  paints. 

(1)  Labor. — Germany  is  the  largest  producer  of  lampblack  in  the 
world,  and  their  wages  are  from  50  per  cent  to  75  per  cent  lower  in 
that  country  than  they  are  here.     For  instance,  our  common  laborers 
get-  $2  a  day,  and  our  cooperers  get  $3  a  day,  and  our  foremen  get  $20 
per  week,  as  against  the  German  wages  for  a  common  laborer  of  3 
marks,  which  equals  75  cents,  4  marks,  which  equals  $1,  for  cooperers, 
and  38  to  40  marks  a  week,  which  equal  $9.50  to  $10  for  foremen. 

(2)  Raw  material. — Germany  is  also  the  largest  producers  of  coal 
tar  and  coal-tar  products,  which  are  the  base  of  the  raw  materials  for 
the  manufacture  of  lampblacks.     They  therefore  have  cheaper  coal 
tar  and  coal-tar  products  than  the  American  manufacturers. 

(3)  Marketing  the  product. — American  manufacturers  have  to  de- 
pend on  the  American  market  exclusively,  as  not  a  pound  can  be  sold 
outside  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  the  German  competition. 
They  all  have  the  South  American  trade,  for  the  reason  that  they  are 
not  only  in  a  position  to  produce  cheaper,  but  they  transport  their 
lampblack  at  ridiculously  low-ocean  freights  right  to  South  America 


SCHEDULE   A.  305 

PARAGRAPH  46— LAMPBLACK. 

in  their  own  bottoms.     The  same  holds  true  in  Russia,  England,  and 
Austria. 

(4)  No  change  can  be  made  in  the  tariff  without  injuring  to  some 
extent  the  American  industry. 

(5)  We  are  perfectly  familiar  with  the  above-mentioned  facts  for 
the  reason  that  we  are  well  posted  on  manufacturing  conditions  on 
the  other  side. 

(6)  The  Germans  can  deliver  lampblack  here  on  the  basis  of  only  a 
15  per  cent  duty  at  a  lower  price  than  the  goods  can  be  manufactured 
for  in  this  country.     We  would  be  glad  to  give  exact  figures  proving 
our  contention  if  you  will  give  us  an  opportunity. 

(7)  The  evidence  submitted  is  so  clear,  however,  when  you  take 
into  consideration  the  selling  price  of  lampblack  in  this  market,  which 
to-day  is  as  low  as  2  cents  a  pound  for  the  majority  of  it,  as  against 
the  tremendous  advantage  which  the  Germans  have  in  their  labor  and 
raw  materials  that  very  little  further  argument  or  figures  is  necessary. 

(8)  The  Germans  are  exporting  lampblack  to  practically  every 
country  where  there  is  a  market  for  it,  whereas  there  is  not  a  pound  of 
lampblack  exported  from  this  country  to  any  point. 

(9)  The  25  per  cent  duty  barely  kept  them  out  of  this  market 
which  they  have  had  their  eyes  on  for  years. 

(10)  You  will  see  from  the  knowledge  which  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  already  have  on  the  raw  material  and  the  labor  condition 
and  the  price  at  wlu'ch  the  majority  of  lampblack  sells  in  this  market 
that  the  duty  should  not  be  reduced  from  25  per  cent. 

(11)  Please  do  not  get  this  article  confused  with  carbon  gas  black — 
which  is  all  produced  in  this  country  and  exported  abroad — nor 
ivory,  bone,  or  drop  blacks. 

(12)  Of  course,  these  blacks  are  all  made  from  entirely  different 
raw  materials,  viz,  carbon  gas  black  from  natural  gas,  and  the  other 
blacks  from  bone  and  vegetable  matter,  and  they  can  not,  any  of 
them,  be  used  for  the  same  purpose  as  lampblack. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

WILCKES,  MARTIN  WILCKES  Co., 
By  L.  MARTIN. 

BRIEF  OF  H.  B.   CARPENTER,  OF    THE    LISTERS   A.  C.  WORKS, 

NEWARK,  N.  J. 

NEWARK,  N.  J.,  January  17,  1913. 
The  Chairman.  Hon.  BOIES  PENROSE,  and 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMITTEE, 

V.  S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  respectfully  urge  upon  you  to  consider  carefully 
the  question  of  removing  the  present  auty  from  "animal  charcoal*' 
and  pray  you  to  leave  it  undisturbed,  as  serious  consequences  are 
likely  to  result  to  many  thousands  of  persons  whose  labor  and  living 
are  dependent  upon  the  production  of  this  article. 

78959° — VOL  1—13 20 


306  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  45— LAMPBLACK. 

"Bone  black,"  "animal  charcoal,"  or  "ivory  black"  is  made  from 
bones  and  is  used  for  decolorizing  purposes  by  sugar  refiners,  oil  re- 
finers, blacking  manufacturers,  and  others. 

The  collection  of  raw  stock  is  a  slow  and  difficult  matter  in  this 
country,  as  labor  will  not  engage  in  it  without  being  paid  much  higher 
price  than  in  foreign  countries. 

The  collection  of  bones  furnishes  occupation  for  thousands  of  per- 
sons. Every  town  of  any  size  has  one  or  more  men  engaged  in  the 
collection  of  bones,  which  are  shipped  to  the  nearest  manufacturers. 
The  following  statement  shows  the  wages  here  and  abroad: 

Under  conditions  abroad,  labor  is  paid  as  follows:  Common  labor, 
$6  per  week;  skilled  labor,  $7.50  per  week;  while  in  this  country  the 
rates  are,  common  labor,  $10  per  week;  skilled  labor,  $12  per  week, 
which  is  equivalent  to  66§  per  cent  and  60  per  cent,  respectively,  in 
favor  of  American  workmen.  Of  the  total  expense  of  manufacturing 
bone  black  more  than  50  per  cent  is  labor.  Bones  being  refuse,  their 
value  arises  from  the  labor  employed  in  collecting,  handling,  and 
conveying  to  the  different  factories.  Removal  of  the  duty  from 
bone  black  will  result  in  the  reduction  of  the  price  of  bones,  which 
must  be  borne  by  the  laborers  engaged  in  the  collection  and  sale  of 
bones. 

For  the  period  of  eight  years  ending  December  31,  1911,  the  profit 
to  the  Listers  Works  in  the  manufacture  of  bone  black  shows  an  aver- 
age of  0.09-54/1 00  per  cent  on  the  gross  sales.  For  a  manufacturing 
business  employing  a  large  amount  of  capital  it  would  appear  that 
this  is  a  small  profit.  If  the  duty  is  removed  the  profit  will  un- 
doubtedly disappear  altogether,  as  sugar  refiners  are  the  principal 
users  in  this  country,  and  the  duty  on  bone  black,  such  as  they  use, 
as' at  present  levied,  would  be  from  $12  to  $13  per  ton.  The  profits 
of  0.09-54/100  per  cent  represent  less  than  $5  per  ton  of  product, 
therefore,  it  is  self-evident  that  the  bone-black  business  will  be  de- 
stroyed if  the  duty  is  removed  and  foreign  competition  allowed  with- 
out protection  in  this  country. 

The  business  of  the  Listers  Works  in  bone  black  has  decreased 
about  33  per  cent  during  the  past  eight  years  as  compared  with  the 
years  1898  and  1894,  and  if  the  duty  is  removed  will  be  wiped  out 
entirely,  thus  depriving  a  large  number  of  employees  in  the  bone- 
black  works  of  their  livelihood  and  leaving  a  larger  number  of  bone 
gatherers  through  the  country  with  no  employment. 

We  therefore  pray  that  your  honorable  committee  will  carefully 
reconsider  your  action  and  permit  the  duty  on  "bone  charcoal"  to 
remain  undisturbed  and  as  at  present  provided. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

(Signed)  LISTERS  A.  C.  WORKS, 

By  J.  F.  KEHOE,  President. 


SCHEDULE   A.  307 

PARAGRAPHS  46-47— DRY  COLORS. 
PARAGRAPH  46. 

Chrome  yellow,  chrome  green,  and  all  other  chromium  colors  in  the  manu- 
facture of  which  lead  and  bichromate  of  potash  or  soda  are  used,  in  pulp, 
dry,  or  ground  in  or  mixed  with  oil  or  water,  four  and  three-eighths  cents  per 
pound. 

PARAGRAPH  47. 

Ocher  and  ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  and  umber  and  umber 
earths,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  when  crude  or  not  powdered, 
washed,  or  pulverized,  one-eighth  of  one  cent  per  pound ;  if  powdered,  washed, 
or  pulverized,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  if  ground  in  oil  or  water, 
per  cent  per  pound. 
For  sienna  earths,  see  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  111. 

DRY  COLORS. 

BRIEF  OF  C.  K.   WILLIAMS  &  CO.,  OF  EASTON,  PA.,  ON  DRY 
COLORS  AND  MINERAL  FILLERS. 

C.  K.  WILLIAMS  &  Co., 
Easton,  Pa.,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  A.^IITCHELL  PALMER, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  manufacturers  of  dry  colors  and  mineral  fillers,  we 
wish  to  refute  articles  covered  by  paragraphs  Nos.  47  and  56  of  pres- 
ent tariff.  Venetian  red,  red  oxides,  mortar  colors,  ocher,  umbers,  and 
siennas  are  largely  produced  from  the  natural  resources  of  our  land. 
The  labor  costs  commence  from  the  time  they  are  first  moved  from 
the  earth,  and  constitute  fully  80  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  finished 
product.  From  our  knowledge  of  frequent  visits  to  the  mines  and 
works  abroad,  with  which  we  compete,  can  say  that  the  cost  of  labor 
abroad  for  this  kind  of  work  is  less  than  one-half  what  it  is  in  the 
United  States.  Thus  the  present  duty  of  30  per  cent  is  not  excessive 
and  does  not  prevent  these  products  being  imported  in  large  propor- 
tions; and  we  earnestly  request  that  you  lend  your  support  to  the 
maintenance  of  present  tariff  applying  to  them.  As  you  know,  this 
is  an  important  industry  in  Pennsylvania,  especially  in  your  district, 
and  needs  the  protection. 

Very  truly,  yours,  C.  K.  WILLIAMS  &  Co., 

C.  K.  WILLIAMS,  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  OF  F.  A.  REICHARD,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Oiairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  wish  to  place  before  you  a  few  facts  regarding  the  tariff 
on  those  dry  colors  in  which  we  are  particularly  experienced  through 
importation  for  the  past  60  }7ears. 

Ochers,  umbers,  and  siennas  (covered  by  par.  47,  customs  tariff 
act  of  Aug.  5,  1909). — There  are  no  qualities  suitable  for  paint 
manufacturers,  which  branch  of  the  countrj7's  industries  is  the  largest 
user  of  these  colors  produced  in  this  country.  It  is  readily  apparent, 
therefore,  that  three-eighths  cent  per  pound  duty  is  unjust,  because 
the  ultimate  consumer  is  taxed  with  this  unfair  duty.  So  long  as 


308  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  46-47— DBY  COLOBS. 

suitable  quantities  are  not  produced  here,  we  think  the  manufac- 
turer and  ultimate  consumer  should  receive  the  benefit  of  free  entry. 

The  few  American  mines  produce  vastly  inferior  grades  and  really 
do  not  enter  into  competition  with  the  imported  products  to  any 
appreciable  degree.  . 

We  would  refer  you  to  a  very,  comprehensive  brier  submitted  to 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress,  which 
appears  on  pages  413-452  of  the  publication  "Tariff  Hearings,"  Six- 
tieth Congress,  Schedule  A.  This  brief  goes  into  greater  detail  than 
we  do  here,  and  also  gives  you  the  opinions  of  many  leading  paint 
makers  on  these  items. 

Oxide  of  iron  (Covered  by  -par.  56  customs  tariff  act  of  Aug.  5, 
1909) . — There  are  two  classes,  natural,  which  is  mined,  and  artificial, 
which  is  made  by  the  calcination  of  copperas. 

These  natural  oxides  are  in  exactly  the  same  position  as  ochers, 
umbers,  and  siennas — the  qualities  mined  here  are  so  greatly  inf  erior 
to  those  produced  abroad  that  it  seems  to  us  a  shame  to  tax  the 
American  consumer  30  per  cent — by  the  American  consumer  we  mean 
the  entire  population  of  the  country,  for  every  person  is  a  more  or  less 
user  of  paint — for  the  benefit  of  a  few  firms  engaged  in  the  production 
of  this  material. 

It  is  recognized  bv  the  trade  that  the  present  duty  of  30  per  cent 
on  the  artificial  oxides  is  inequitable — particularly  on  the  lower 
grades.  Copperas  is  plentiful  in  this  country  and  we  believe  pur- 
chasable at  a  much  lower  price  than  in  England,  which  country  is  the 
acknowledged  producer  of  the  best  qualities  of  red  oxide. 

It  does  not  seem  right  to  us  that  the  hundreds,  nay  thousands,  of 
users  of  copperas  red  oxide  in  this  country  should  be  compelled  to 
stand  a  tax  of  30  per  cent  for  the  benefit  of — to  the  best  of  our 
knowledge — three  manufacturers.  We  would  suggest  a  rate  of  15 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  we  are  sure  would  amply  protect  the  three 
American  makers  and  vastly  benefit  the  thousands  of  consumers. 

The  brief  mentioned  above  also  treats  of  these  items  in  greater 
detail. 

While  on  this  red  oxide  subject  we  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a 
grievous  wrong  perpetrated  under  the  present  tariff:  There  is  a  crude 
oxide  of  iron  mined  abroad  and  well  known  to  the  trade  under  the 
caption  of  "Persian  Gulf  red" — this  is  largely  used  by  paint  makers. 

It  is  being  imported  by  one  house,  whom  the  trade  believes  to  have 
the  sole  agency,  at  a  rate  of  15  cents  per  ton  duty,  although  the 
tariff  specifically  provides  that  all  colors,  whether  crude  or  powdered, 
should  pay  30  per  cent.  This  importing  firm  brings  it  in  under  the 
''  Iron  ore  for  smelting  purposes"  clause,  which  you  can  readily  see  is 
entirely  wrong  because  every  particle  of  it  is  used  as  a  coloring  agent 
01-  paint.  Now,  to  further  accentuate  the  injustice,  other  iron  ores  are 
compelled  to  pay  a  30  per  cent  duty.  As  both  classes  go  for  the  same 
purpose,  we  are  sure  you  will  agree  with  our  contention  that  the 
crude  iron  oxide  designated  herein  as  Persian  Gulf  should  pay  the  30 
per  cent  duty.  In  order  to  eliminate  such  an  unjust  discrimination 
in  the  tariff'  which  your  committee  will  draft,  we  respectfully  suggest 
that  you  specifically  provide  for  occurrences  of  this  nature — this  can 
easily  be  done  by  specifying  that  all  crude  iron  oxides  when  intended 
for  use  as  a  paint  or  color  should  pay  the  rate  of  duty  which  your 


SCHEDULE  A.  309 

PARAGRAPHS  46-47— DRY  COLORS.    . 

committee  thinks  just.  A  proviso  of  this  nature  will  prevent  dis- 
crimination in  favor  of  certain  importers. 

Principal  uses  of  ochers  and  oxides  of  iron. — These  colors  are  used 
principally  in  the  cheaper  classes  of  paints — mixed  paints,  barn 
paints,  freight-car  paints,  structural  paints,  etc.,  and  therefore  you 
can  readily  see  that  a  duty  on  these  items  materially  affects  the 
selling  price  to  the  American  consumer  of  a  necessity  such  as  the 
paints  described  have  become. 

Lead  products  (covered  by  par.  48,  orange  mineral;  49,  red  lead- 
customs  tariff  act  of  Aug.  5,  1909). — We  speak  only  of  orange  mineral 
and  red  lead. 

The  tariff  on  these  items  is  exorbitant  and  seems  to  have  been  cre- 
ated solely  to  benefit  the  National  Lead  Co. — the  so-called  Lead 
Trust. 

There  is  no  reason  for  the  existence  of  separate  duties  on  these 
items — orange  mineral  is  only  a  high  grade  of  red  lead.  The  exist- 
ence of  distinct  duties  renders  it  easy  for  the  entering  of  the  superior 
red  lead  (orange  mineral)  at  the  lower  duty — the  red-lead  duty.  One 
tariff  on  these  items  would  render  this  impossible. 

We  firmly  believe  a  duty  of  If  cents  per  pound  on  red  lead  and 
orange  mineral  would  be  ample.  Such  a  duty  would  take  excellent 
care  of  the  Lead  Trust  and  still  benefit  the  consumer. 

A  reference  to  the  brief  mentioned  above  will  give  you  further 
information  on  these  items. 

Ultramarine  Hue  (covered  by  par.  50,  customs  tariff  act  of  Aug.  5, 
1909). — This  is  another  product  very  largely  used  by  paint  manu- 
facturers, paper  manufacturers,  and  several  other  industries  which 
is  in  the  hands  of  a  trust  and  which  is  protected  to  a  greater  extent 
than  it  is  rightfully  entitled. 

We  would  refer  you  to  pages  413-452  of  the  above-mentioned  pub- 
lication which  will  give  you  full  information  as  to  what  large  con- 
sumers think  is  a  proper  duty. 

We  also  wish  to  refer  you  to  pages  459  to  468  of  the  publication 
mentioned  herein  which  will  prove  conclusively  the  absolute  monop- 
oly enjoyed  by  the  Ultramarine  Trust. 

We  can  not  urge  you  too  strongly  to  provide  a  duty  on  ultramarine 
blue,  which  will  permit  of  importation  and  thus  break  the  monopoly 
in  this  country.  Such  a  procedure  would  greatly  benefit  many  indus- 
tries employing  thousands  upon  thousands  of  workmen,  because  free 
competition  in  ultramarine  blue  would  then  be  enjoyed  by  the  con- 
sumers. 

Talc,  sulphate  of  lime,  and  china  clay  (covered  by  pars.  481,  talc; 
88,  sulphate  of  lime;  90,  china  clay,  customs  tariff  act  of  Aug.  5, 
1909). — We  would  refer  you  to  pages  413-452  of  the  publication 
hitherto  mentioned. 

Talc  pays  20  per  cent  duty  as  an  article  not  specifically  provided 
for. 

We  might  add  that  there  is  no  talc  mined  in  this  country  equal  to 
that  which  is  mined  abroad,  and  the  retaining  of  a  tariff  upon  an 
article  placed  such  as  this  entails  considerable  hardship  upon  the 
manufacturers  whose  needs  demand  the  better  qu ah' ties.  The  same 
is  true  of  sulphate  of  lime  and  china  clay. 


310  TABIFP  HEADINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  50— ULTRAMARINE  BLUE. 

We  would  respectfully  suggest  a  duty  of,  say,  5  per  cent  upon  talc; 
this  would  greatly  benefit  the  consumers  and  would  very  likely 
increase  revenue. 

We  will  be  very  glad  to  advise  you  upon  any  points  not  mentioned 
herein  upon  which  you  desire  information,  for  it  is  our  one  desire  to 
place  in  the  possession  of  your  committee  true  facts  regarding  the 
tariff  situation  upon  those  items  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 
Respectfully, 

F.  A.  REICHARD. 
By  J.  W.  BOSSERT. 

PARAGRAPH  48. 

Orange  mineral,  three  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound. 

See  F.  A.  Reichard,  page  309. 

PARAGRAPH  49. 

Red  lead,  two  and  five-eighths  cents  per  pound. 
See  F.  A.  Reichard,  page  309. 

PARAGRAPH  50. 

Ultramarine  blue,  whether  dry,  in  pulp,  or  mixed  with  water,  and  wash  blue 
containing  ultramarine,  three  cents  per  pound. 
See  F.  A.  Reichard,  page  309. 

ULTRAMARINE  BLUE. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  HELLER  &  MERZ  CO.,  ON  ULTRAMARINE  BLUE. 

NEWARK,  N.  J.,  January  3,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,   Washington,  D.  C.: 
We  wish  to  submit  to  you  and  your  committee  the  following  facts 

for  consideration  in  deciding  on  the  duty  to  be  put  on  "Ultramarine 

blue,     *  *     and  wash  blue  containing  ultramarine,"  paragraph 

50,  Schedule  A. 

The  duty  on  these  items  under  the  Payne- Aldrich  Act  is  3  cents  per 

pound,  specific.     In  filing  with  you  our  protest  against  any  change 

we  will  discuss  the  subject  under  three  heads: 

(1)  The  duty  should  be  specific,  and  not  ad  valorem. 

(2)  The  production  of  maximum  revenue. 

(3)  Relations  of  wages  paid  in,  and  duties  levied  by,  the  United 
States  compared  with  wages  paid  in,  and  duties  levied  by,  foreign 
countries. 

THE  DUTY  SHOULD  BE  SPECIFIC,  AND  NOT  AD  VALOREM. 

Ultramarine  is  used  in  paints,  oil  enamels,  printers'  inks,  paper 
making,  wash  blue,  and  for  other  purposes.  Each  trade  requires 
its  own  speciality,  and  the  prices  vary  between  very  wide  limits.  The 
external  appearance,  and  even  the  chemical  analysis,  gives  no  clue  to 
its  adaptability  for  a  given  use.  It  is  therefore  apparent  that  an  ad 
valorem  duty,  involving  an  appraisal,  is  uncertain,  unreliable,  and 
fraught  with  difficulties  in  application. 


SCHEDULE   A.  311 

PARAGRAPH  50— ULTRAMARINE  BLUE. 
THE    PRODUCTION   OF   MAXIMUM   REVENUE. 

The  caucus  print,  published  in  connection  with  H.  R.  20182,  shows 
that  the  imports  of  ultramarine  have  steadily  increased  since  1905. 
The  slight  falling  off  in  1911,  as  compared  with  1910,  when  709,726 
pounds  were  imported,  is  no  more  than  one  carload,  which  was 
undoubtedly  compensated  for  in  1912.  Following  the  statistics 
further  back,  we  find  that  the  imports  in  1900  were  estimated  at 
350,000  pounds  per  year,  and  1898  at  275,000  pounds  per  year, 
showing  that  the  imports  have  increased  250  per  cent  in  a  period  of 
13  years. 

A  further  reduction  of  the  duty  will  result  in  an  increased  impor- 
tation expressed  in  pounds.  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that  the 
increased  importations,  under  a  reduced  duty,  will  be  sufficient  to 
maintain  the  revenue  collected  in  1910  and  1911.  In  fact,  the  caucus 
print  shows  that  in  the  estimate  of  its  compilers  the  revenue  will  fall 
30  per  cent  under  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per  cent  and  a  2-cent 
minimum. 

AMERICAN  WAGES  AND  DUTIES  COMPARED  WITH  EUROPEAN  WAGES  AND 

DUTIES. 

Our  unskilled  and  semiskilled  labor  is  paid  from  $10  to  $15  per 
week.  Skilled  labor  is  paid  from  $3  to  $4  per  day,  or  $18  to  $24  per 
week. 

German  laborers  in  ultramarine  factories  are  paid  but  50  per  cent  of 
the  American  wages.  French  laborers  in  ultramarine  factories  are 
paid  63  cents  per  day,  or  37  per  cent  of  the  lowest  American  wages. 
Belgian  laborers  in  ultramarine  factories  are  paid  43  cents  per  day,  or 
25  per  cent  of  the  American  wages. 

The  duty  levied  on  ultramarine  under  the  German  tariff  law, 
though  but  15  marks  per  100  kilos,  is  prohibitive  of  imports  into  that 
country.  Official  statistics  show  that  the  German  imports  are  less 
than  1£  per  cent  of  the  German  production  of  ultramarine.  The 
French  manufacturer  has  the  benefit  of  a  protective  duty  of  30  francs 
per  100  kilos,  or  2f  cents  per  pound. 

In  view  of  the  protective  duties  levied  by  European  countries, 
export  from  America  into  those  countries  is  impossible ;  in  view  of  the 
wage  difference  between  American  and  European  countries,  it  is 
impossible  for  the  American  producer  to  send  ultramarine  even  into 
free-trade  countries  in  competition  with  France,  Germany,  and 
Belgium. 

The  American  employer  pays  his  workmen  from  two  to  four  times 
as  much  as  is  earned  by  the  European  laborer.  We  trust  that  the 
duty  you  will  see  fit  to  put  on  our  products  will  not  place  the  American 
manufacturer  of  ultramarine  in  the  position  to  make  him  choose 
between  conceding  his  market  to  the  foreign  manufacturer  by  going 
out  of  business,  or  offering  an  American  workman  the  European  wage 
scale. 

Respectfully,  THE  HELLER  &  MERZ  Co., 

By  EUGENE  MERZ,  Treasurer. 


312  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAOBAPH  61— VABNISHES. 

PARAGRAPH  51. 

Varnishes,  including  so-called  gold  size  or  japan,  twenty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem;  enamel  paints  made  with  varnish,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem;  spirit  varnish  containing  five  per  centum  or  more  of  methyl  alcohol, 
thirty-five  cents  per  gallon  and  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  spirit 
varnish  containing  less  than  five  per  centum  of  methyl  alcohol,  one  dollar  and 
thirty-two  cents  per  gallon  and  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  varnishes,  see  also  Pomeroy  &  Fischer,  page  350. 

VARNISHES. 

STATEMENT  OF  A.  H.  WASHBTJEN,  EEPEESENTINO  J.  A.  &  W. 
BIED  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YOEK  AND  BOSTON. 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  I  appear,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 
committee,  in  behxlf  of  Messrs.  J.  A.  &  W.  Bird  &  Co.,  of  New  York 
and  Boston,  importers  of  enameled  paints.  The  paragraph  affected 
is  51,  I  think,  of  the  present  act. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  state  your  name,  please,  sir  1 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Washburn. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Washburn? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  the  initials  1 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  A.  H. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  A.  H.  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  paragraph  did  you  say  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Paragraph  51.     I  think  it  is  51,  of  the  Payne  Act. 

Mr.  HILL.  Fifty-one  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Varnishes  also  come  in  under  that  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  in  the  varnish  paragraph,  and  the 
clause  to  which  I  want  to  direct  your  attention  for  just  a  moment 
provides  for  enamel  paints  made  with  varnish.  Now,  enamel  paint 
is  a  specialized  article,  containing  zinc  oxide  as  a  base  uniformly,  I 
think.  The  zinc  oxide  is  ground  in  oil,  and  usually — not  always — a 
certain  percentage  of  varnish  is  added  to  impart  a  gloss,  and  because 
of  that  fact,  I  suppose,  enamel  paints  are  provided  for  in  the  varnish 
provision.  Under  the  old  act  of  1897  they  were  held  to  be  dutiable 
as  zinc-oxide  paints,  the  courts  saying  that  the  addition  of  varnish 
did  not  change  the  character  of  the  article  as  a  zinc-oxide  paint.  That 
duty  was  If  cents  per  pound.  The  present  rate  is  a  very  great  addi- 
tion to  the  old  rate.  The  importations  under  the  present  act  have 
been  comparatively  slight.  I  have  not  the  figures  for  the  last  year, 
but  the  amount  of  duties  paid  on  these  enamel  paints  entered  for 
consumption  during  the  years  1910  and  1911,  ending  June  30,  in 
no  one  year  hardly  exceeded  $3,000.  The  revenue  from  this  source 
is  very  slight. 

The  suggestion  we  make  is  that  the  present  duty  of  35  per  cent, 
which  by  the  way  is,  I  think,  the  highest  duty  assessed  upon  any  paint 
(even  under  the  old  Dingley  Act  the  highest  rate  of  duty  was  30  per 
cent) — that  that  be  materially  reduced;  that  the  old  phraseology 
preferably  be  reestablished — '  'zinc-oxide  paint";  but  if  the  committee 
prefer  to  retain  the  present  language — the  dominative  provision  for 
enamel  paints,  that  it  strike  out  the  provision  "made  with  varnish," 


SCHEDULE  A.  313 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

and  the  reason  for  that  is  this :  These  enamel  paints  are  made  both 
with  and  without  varnish  and  it  has  been  very  difficult  for  chemists — 
the  Government  chemists — to  determine  by  an  analysis  whether 
varnish  is  or  is  not  added  to  impart  the  gloss.  Some  gums,  acting 
as  a  varnish  substitute,  are  sometimes  added,  and  the  result  is  a 
certain  amount  of  confusion.  You  have  enamel  paints  made  with 
varnish  assessed  at  35  per  cent,  and  you  have  enamel  paints  proven 
in  some  cases  not  to  be  made  with  varnish,  but  accomplishing 
precisely  the  same  purposes,  taking  another  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  total  product  of  this  article  of  enamel 
paint  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  In  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes. 

Mr.  WASHBUKN.  I  have  not  the  domestic  figures.  The  total 
amount  entered  for  consumption  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  1910, 
beginning,  of  course,  August  5, 1 909 — that  would  be  about  1 1  months — 
was  only  3,334.5  gallons,  and  those  were  valued  at  $6,485,  and  for 
the  next  year  the  total  amount  of  imports  entered  for  consumption 
as  shown  by  the  official  statistics  was  4,584  gallons. 

Mr.  JAMES.  No ;  but  I  asked  you  about  what  was  the  value  of  the 
output  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  The  domestic  output,  Senator  James,  I  am  not 
advised  with  respect  to  that.  It  is  difficult  to  get  any  figures. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Could  you  not  approximate  it  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  No ;  I  can  not.  I  have  not  been  able  to  get  any 
figures  about  that. 

Mr.  KAINEY.  Are  there  many  factories  making  it  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  Oh,  I  could  say  there  are  perhaps  hah*  a  dozen 
factories  making  these  enamel  paints. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  the  consumption  large  or  small  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  It  is  growing.  It  is,  as  I  said  at  the  outset,  a 
specialized  article,  which  has  come  into  vogue  during  the  last  10 
years,  but  under  the  present  conditions,  as  they  now  exist,  it  can  not  be 
imported  to  any  very  great  extent. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  are  in  favor  of  the  reduction  proposed  hi  our 
bill  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  Certainly,  sir ;  and  even  lower.  We  think  a  duty 
of  approximately  20  per  cent  would  yield  a  much  larger  revenue  and 
permit  these  people  to  do  a  competitive  business. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Just  what  is  the  business  or  firm  that  you 
represent  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN,  They  are  importers  of  paints  and  oils. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  They  are  not  manufacturers? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  No;  they  are  not  manufacturers,  Mr.  Longworth. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  To  whom  do  they  sell? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  They  sell  to  the  American  consumers. 

Mr.  HILL.  For  whom  do  they  sell?  Whom  do  they  represent  on 
the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  I  think  they  buy  it  from  various  sources. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  not  know? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  I  only  know  one  name. 

Mr.  HILL.  Well,  what  is  that? 

Mr.  WASHBURN.  That  is  the  Repolin  Co.  (Ltd.),  I  think,  Holland. 


314  TABIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  they  agents  or  are  they  buyers  in  the  world's 

market  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  They  are  buyers  in  the  world's  market;  yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  not  agents  for  any  particular  concern  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  I  think  they  are  agents  for  that  particular 
concern. 

Mr.  HILL.  Well,  for  what  other  concern  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUBN.  I  do  not  know  of  any  others. 

Mr.  LONGWOBTH.  Their  interest  is  simply  to  get  the  importation 
as  cheaply  as  possible?  They  have  no  interest  in  the  industry  in 
this  country  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  They  are  perfectly  willing  that  the  domestic 
industry  should  continue  to  nourish. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  represent  two  concerns,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  No;  just  J.  A.  &  W.  Bird. 

Mr.  HILL.  Have  they  any  money  invested  in  the  production  of 
this  article  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  Not  in  this  country. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  they  import  any  other  paints  than  enamel 
paints  made  with  varnish  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  I  think  they  do.  They  are  not  interested,  how- 
ever, so  far  as  I  am  advised,  in  the  tariff  rate  on  any  others. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  would  not  have  much  of  a  (business,  if  that 
were  the  whole  business. 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  They  are  interested  in  other  paints  and  oils.  I 
know  they  import  other  varieties,  but  how  largely  I  am  not  advised. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Are  there  anv  enamel  paints  exported  from  the  United 
States  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  I  am  not  advised  about  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  This  figure  here  of  35  per  cent  is  practically  pro- 
hibitive, is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  It  is  almost  prohibitive.  It  has  not  resulted  in 
yielding  much  revenue,  as  you  can  see  from  the  official  figures. 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  revenue  received  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1912, 
is  $2,689.90? 

Mr.  WASHBUEN.  Yes,  sir;  and  yet  it  is  quite  an  important  article 
of  commerce.  I  will  file  my  brief. 

BOSTON,  MASS.,  January  2,  1913. 
COMMITTEE  ONT  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  address  you  as  dealers  in  enamel  paints.  Enamel  paints  as  a 
group  have  a  zinc  oxide  base  and  usually  are  ground  in  oil  and  varnish  added  to 
impart  a  gloss,  or  the  zinc  oxide  may  be  ground  in  varnish  itself.  Because  varnish 
is  so  generally  employed  in  their  manufacture,  no  doubt,  enamel  paints  are  included 
in  a  clause  of  the  varnish  paragraph  (51)  of  the  present  tariff  act  providing  for  "enamel 
paints  made  with  varnish,  35  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

Lnder  the  Dingley  tariff  act  there  was  no  eo  nomine  provision  for  these  paints  as 
such,  and  they  were  assessed  by  collectors  of  customs  under  the  general  "basket 
clause "  paint  provision  as  paints  "not  otherwise  specially  provided  for."  The  courts, 
however,  on  two  different  occasions  held  white  enamel  paints  to  be  otherwise  specially 
provided  for  under  the  more  exact  descriptive  language  found  in  paragraph  57  of  the 
act  of  1897  as  "Zinc,  oxide  of,  and  white  paint  or  pigment  containing  zinc,  but  not 
containing  lead  ground  in  oil,  one  and  three-quarter  cents  per  pound."  Colored 
enamel  paints  were  not  affected  by  this  ruling. 

The  view  adopted  by  the  Federal  courts  was  that  the  merchandise  was  in  fact  a 
white  paint  containing  zinc,  but  not  containing  lead,  and  ground  in  oil,  and  that  the 
addition  of  the  varnish  did  not  under  established  rules  of  interpretation  change  the 


SCHEDULE  A.  315 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

character  of  the  mixture  as  a  paint.  The  decisions  and  the  reasoning  upon  which 
they  were  based  will  be  found  in  United  States  v.  Bird,  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals, 
Second  Circuit  (167  Fed.  Rep.,  319). 

Enamel  paint  is  largely  a  specialized  article,  the  demand  for  which  has  been  worked 
up  chiefly  during  the  past  decade.  It  is  used  where  enamel  surface  is  especially 
desired,  as  in  painting  golf  balls,  bathtubs,  and  the  like.  During  the  latter  part  of 
the  lifetime  of  the  Dingley  Act  the  importations,  while  not  on  an  extensive  scale, 
were  sufficiently  large  to  yield  considerable  revenue  to  the  Government.  No  sta- 
tistical figures  are  available  of  the  volume  of  importations  under  the  old  law,  nor,  as 
far  as  we  are  aware,  none  are  available  now  showing  the  total  importations.  It  appears, 
however,  from  statistics  published  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  that 
from  August  5,  1909,  the  date  of  the  Payne-Aldrich  Act,  to  June  30,  1910,  3,334.50 
gallons  of  enamel  paints,  valued  at  $6,485,  were  entered  for  consumption,  yielding,  at 
35  per  centum,  Government  revenue  of  only  $2,269.75. 

For  the  year  ending  June  30,  1911,  4,584.50  gallons  valued  at  $8,782.88  were  entered 
in  the  same  way,  upon  which  duties  amounting  to  $3,074.01  were  collected.  The 
amount  of  revenue  under  present  conditions  is  thus  seen  to  be  inconsiderable  at 
best.  Under  existing  conditions  handicapped  by  the  present  extensive  duty  we 
can  not  compete  with  the  domestic  aritcle  which  is  able  to  undersell  us  regularly. 
With  a  reasonable  tariff  rate,  speaking  for  ourselves,  we  could  get  our  fair  share  of 
the  business,  and  which  is  all  we  ask,  and  incidentally  insure  a  larger  Government 
revenue  from  this  source.  We  have  no  doubt  other  dealers  are  similarly  situated. 

In  our  opinion  this  tariff  rate  to  yield  a  satisfactory  revenue  should  under  no  con- 
ditions exceed  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  if  your  committee  prefers  ad  valorem  rates  to 
the  specific  rate  of  If  cents  per  pound  levied  under  paragraph  57  of  the  act  of  1897. 
The  corresponding  paragraph  (55)  in  the  act  of  1909  retains  the  same  rate  of  If  cents 
per  pound,  but  the  paragraph  was  amended  by  striking  out  the  provision  for  "white 
paint"  (under  which  these  enamel  paints  had  been  classified)  found  in  paragraph  57 
of  the  act  of  1897.  The  highest  ad  valorem  rate  assessed  upon  even  the  most  expen- 
sive varieties  of  wet  paints  does  not  exceed  30  per  cent  under  the  present  tariff  act. 
This  is  the  rate  also  assessed  upon  various  hign-grade  dry  colors.  The  discrimina- 
tion against  enamel  paints  found  in  the  present  act  in  indefensible. 

The  present  provision  is  for  "enamel  paints  made  with  varnish."  This  has  been 
productive  of  some  litigation,  inasmuch  as  some  varieties  of  enamel  paints  have  been 
shown  not  to  be  made  with  varnish  and  have  accordingly  been  held  not  to  be  dutiable 
at  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  as  "enaniel  paints  made  with  varnish"  but  at  30  per  cent 
ad  valorem  as  paints  "not  otherwise  specially  provided  for."  (G.  A.  7324,  T.  D. 
32243.)  Inasmuch  as  many  varieties  of  enamel  paints  are  either  made  with  varnish 
or  contain  varnish  as  an  ingredient,  enamel  paints  take  one  rate  or  the  other  accord- 
ing as  they  are  shown  to  be  made  with  or  without  varnish.  Whether  varnish  is  used 
or  some  substitute  for  varnish  is  used  in  the  process  of  manufacture  to  impart  a  gloea 
is  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  determine  by  analysis.  If  your  committee,  therefore, 
desire  to  continue  to  make  a  special  provision  for  enamel  paints,  we  would  suggest 
that  the  words  "made  with  varnish"  be  omitted.  A  specific  provision  for  "enamel 
paints  "  followed  by  the  rate  of  duty  would,  we  think,  be  unambiguous  and  embrace 
enamel  paints  both  white  and  colored.  If  your  committee  should  prefer  to  eliminate 
the  special  provision  for  enamel  paints  and  return  to  phraseology  similar  to  that 
employed  in  the  acts  of  1894  and  1897,  this  result  would  be  accomplished,  in  our  opin- 
ion, by  amending  the  present  paragraph  (55)  so  as  to  read: 

"Zinc,  oxide  of,  and  paint  or  pigment  containing  zinc  but  not  containing  lead, 
dry, per  pound;  ground  in  oil, per  pound." 

Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  A.  &  W.  BIRD  &  Co., 

By  COMSTOCK   &    WTASHBURN. 

STATEMENT  OF  P.  H.  CALLAHAN,  OF  LOUISVILLE,  KY. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  the  articles  in  question 
here,  and  perhaps  some  of  the  members  would  like  to  see  them.  [Mr. 
Callahan  thereupon  submitted  to  the  members  of  the  committee 
some  samples. 1 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  have  appeared 
here  as  a  member  of  and  delegate  for  the  National  Varnish  Manuf  ac- 


316  TABUT  HEADINGS. 

PAHAGBAPH  61— VABNISHES. 

turers'  Association,  which  represents  about  80  per  cent  of  the  entire 
industry.  We  have  already  submitted  to  the  chairman  of  your 
committee  a  brief  that  relates  to  the  proposed  duties  on  varnish 
gums,  China  nut  oil,  and  soya  bean  oil,  whicn  have  never  been  taxed 
and  which  have  never  had  any  duty  upon  them  in  the  past. 

I  understand  this  is  not  a  matter  of  protection,  and  my  remarks 
will  therefore  be  upon  the  subject  of  revenue.  I  came  here,  not  with 
the  purpose  of  arguing  the  justice  or  injustice  of  the  act,  or  the  pro- 
posed act,  but  to  perhaps  furnish  you  with  some  information  which 
we  possess  as  manufacturers  of  these  goods  and  consumers  of  this 
raw  material;  to  show  you  the  ramifications  of  the  business,  the  chan- 
nels in  which  these  goods  go,  so  that  you  will  know  who  eventually 
pays  the  bills  and  who  will  have  to  pay  this  tax. 

Varnish  is  in  no  sense  a  luxury.  Next  to  food  and  clothing,  it  is 
perhaps  now  one  of  the  common  necessities  of  life.  There  is  no  arti- 
cle of  such  general  use,  with  the  exception  of  iron  and  wood  perhaps, 
that  enters  into  the  composition  of  different  manufactures.  You 
can  go  into  the  most  humble  home,  and  you  will  see  varnished 
chairs,  varnished  beds,  varnished  tables,  and  varnished  cradles. 
YoXi  can  go  anvwhere  and  you  will  see  varnished  work.  Perhaps 
next  to  soap,  it  is  now  more  generally  used  than  anything  else  for  ordi- 
nary necessities.  It  is  a  preservative ;  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  it 
should  be  used  for  the  preservation  of  wood  and  also  on  iron  to  pre- 
vent rust.  I  will  just  enumerate  a  few  things  on  which  varnish  is 
used,  varnish  that  is  made  from  the  materials  that  I  have  submitted 
to  you.  It  is  used  on  moldings,  radiators,  bathtubs,  furniture  of  all 
kinds,  including  tables,  chairs,  dressers,  school  desks,  and  office  fur- 
niture, stoves  and  stovepipes;  linoleum;  and  floor  varnishes,  oil 
cloths,  bedsteads,  hardware,  including  locks,  hinges,  bolts,  etc.; 
washing  machines,  brooms,  dusters,  wallpaper,  concrete  floors,  chil- 
dren's toys,  wood  and  metal;  books,  pencils,  rulers,  etc.;  tin  cans, 
labels,  bicycles,  baby  carriages,  automobiles,  agricultural  imple- 
ments, including  wagons,  trucks,  plows,  rakes,  shovels,  and  harrows; 
sewing  machines,  buttons,  buckles,  eyelets,  trunks,  valises,  talking 
machines,  hats,  shoe  buttons,  rubber  shoes  and  boots,  patent  leather, 
coat  hangers,  bobbins,  loom  harness,  coffins,  rubber  cloth,  all  classes 
of  insulated  electric  fixtures,  transformers,  motors,  insulated  wires, 
pianos  and  organs,  sanitary  wall  finishes,  refrigerators,  ships,  yachts, 
motor  boats,  rowboats,  canoes,  railway  and  tramway  cars,  freight 
cars,  fireproof  doors  and  trims,  fiber  products,  pails,  tubs,  etc.; 
willow  ware,  wood-turned  articles,  and  machinery  of  all  classes. 

Those  are  some  of  the  few  things  in  which  varnish  is  used.  It  is 
the  opinion  of  all  manufacturers  and  the  opinion  of  good  judges  of 
economics,  that  articles  of  a  general  beneficial  character  and  com- 
modities of  that  kind  should  be  purchased  at  the  lowest  price,  as  they 
go  to  the  masses,  and  not  to  the  classes. 

It  is  proposed  on  the  basis  of  the  1911  importation  to  raise  the  tax 
to  $803,000 ;  that  is  on  last  year's  importations  of  these  products,  the 
largest  up  to  date.  Now,  it  must  occur  to  you  gentlemen  that  this 
tax  of  $803,000  will  ultimately  go  down  to  the  lines  of  goods  that  I 
have  enumerated,  which  go  into  the  houses  and  into  the  homes  of 
middle  and  humbler  classes  in  particular.  It  is  the  trend  of  the 
times,  I  believe,  to  reduce  the  cost  of  living.  But  it  must  occur  to 


SCHEDULE  A.  317 

PARAGRAPH  61— VARNISHES. 

you  gentlemen  that  this  tax  of  $803,000  will  increase  the  cost  of  living 
at  least  that  much,  and  perhaps  $1,000,000,  with  the  additional 
investment,  and  therefore  would  bring  about  the  opposite  result  from 
that  which  the  committee  desires  to  bring  about. 

Now,  talking  of  our  own  business.  We  are,  as  varnish  manufac- 
turers, a  remnant  of  the  old  style  of  competitive  business.  We  have 
not  the  semblance  of  any  connection  with  each  other.  We  have 
no  combination  in  prices  or  anything  of  that  kind.  We  compete 
with  each  other,  we  nave  our  separate  selling  forces,  we  have  sales 
managers,  and  we  have  an  extensive  research  department.  We  go 
out  with  our  chemists  and  we  develop  new  things  altogether,  so  that 
we  will  have  a  better  price  than  our  competitors.  We  make  a  lower 
price  and  give  the  benefit  of  that  research  and  of  our  investigations  to 
the  public,  with  the  result  that  varnishes  to-day,  regardless  of  the  fact 
that  materials  are  twice  as  high  as  10  years  ago,  are  twice  as  good  at 
the  same  price.  That  benefit  has  been  brought  about  by  the  extremely 
fierce  competition  that  exists  between  us.  Every  one  of  us  has  our 
own  salesmen,  who  solicit  personally,  and  who  Keep  in  touch  fre- 
quently with  every  buyer  in  the  country. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  you  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  spirit  var- 
nishes or  oil  varnishes  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Oil  varnishes,  mostly. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  proposed  bill  reduces  the  duty  on  oil  varnishes 
and  other  materials  also. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  understand  it  does. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  total  of  the  American  consumption  of 
varnish  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  $18,000,000. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  was  the  largest  amount  imported  in  any 
recent  year  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  1911  there  was  about  $9,000  worth  of  varnish 
imported.  You  had  $9,000  worth  of  imports  in  the  total  American 
consumption  of  $18,000.000  worth.  For  what  concern  do  you  appear  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  The  National  Varnish  Manufacturers'  Association. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Does  that  include  among  its  membership  an  im- 
portant concern  of  which  former  Gov.  Franklin  Murphy,  of  New 
Jersey,  is  president? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  believe  they  are  members. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  you  recognize  him  as  an  authority  on  the  manu- 
facture of  varnish  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Do  I  recognize  him  as  an  authority  on  the  manufac- 
ture of  what  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  On  the  manufacture  of  varnish  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Perhaps  so,  on  the  quality  of  varnish;  not  on  an 
economical  question. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  you  know  what  statements  he  made  before  the 
Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  last  year? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HARRISQN.  He  was  asked  some  question  by  the  Senators,  and 
he  said  that  the  varnish  industry,  in  his  opinion,  could  stand  alone 
without  any  duty.  Do  you  agree  with  that  f 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  rather  believe  so. 


318  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  So  that  your  complaint  is  as  to  the  imposition  for 
revenue  of  a  duty  upon  these  noncompetitive  products.  If  your  raw 
materials  were  left  upon  the  free  list,  you  would  be  willing  to  see 
varnish  upon  the  free  list  also  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned;  yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Then  in  that  respect  you  agree  with  Mr.  Murphy  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  make  about  $800,000  worth  of  varnish,  and  none 
of  that  is  in  competition  with  England.  I  do  not  make  automobile 
varnish,  and  I  make  very  little  piano  varnish.  Everything  I  make 
is  in  the  cheaper  line  of  goods  for  the  great  middle  classes.  Mr. 
Murphy's  line,  perhaps,  goes  into  piano  varnish.  If  he  made  that 
statement,  perhaps  he  is  pretty  nearly  correct. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  If  your  materials  of  manufacture  were  not  taxed 
as  proposed  by  this  bill,  do  you  believe  your  industry  could  stand  on 
a  free-trade  basis  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  are  exporting  over  $1,000,000  worth  a  year  in 
competition  with  all  the  world  and  importing  less  than  $50,000  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  We  have  had  the  benefit,  you  understand,  of  free 
materials  all  the  time.  We  have  had  the  benefit  of  extreme  com- 
petition, bringing  out  the  best  that  is  in  us  in  the  development  of 
our  business.  Our  business  is  constituted  of  men  who  own  their  own 
business,  like  myself;  I  am  the  proprietor  of  my  company.  We  are 
always  active  in  it.  I  represent,  as  I  say,  a  remnant  of  the  old-style 
competitive  business,  which  political  parties  are  trying  to  reestablish 
in  this  country.  I  hope,  therefore,  that,  coming  from  an  association 
like  ours,  our  remarks  will  have  some  favorable  consideration  at  your 
hands. 

We  say  that  this  tax  of  $803,000  that  is  proposed  to  be  assessed 
will  be  paid  by  the  consumer.  I  am  trying  to  tell  you  gentlemen  who 
that  consumer  is  that  is  going  to  pay  the  tax. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  are  not  asking  for  any  protection? 

Mr.  CALLAIIAX.  I  am  not  asking  for  protection. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  are  merely  asking  that  the  raw  materials  be 
admitted  f roe- 
Mr.  CALLAIIAX.  I  am  telling  you  just  who  is  going  to  pay  that 
$803,000.  Mr.  James  personally  knows  me  and  knows  my  position 
on  different  topics.  I  say  that  the  removal  of  the  tax  on  sugar  and 
putting  it  on  this  does  not  improve  the  situation  in  the  least. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  for  my  own  information. 
Suppose,  after  imposing  this  revenue  upon  the  raw  materials  we 
reduce  the  duty  upon  the  finished  product  from  65  to  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  CALLAIIAX.  Has  there  been  a  duty  of  65  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  That  is  upon  the  ad  valorem  equivalent.  Do  you 
believe  that  will  permit  any  extensive  importations  from  abroad  ? 

Mr.  CALLAIIAX.  I  do  not"  think  so. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  If  that  is  true,  then  your  position  is  correct.  The 
manufacturers  would  bo  able  to  hand  down  the  small  tax  that  we 
impose  upon  the  raw  materials.  If  the  enormous  reduction  in  duty 
from  65  to  25  por  cent  would  permit  extensive  importations  and 
competition  would  set  in,  how  would  you  be  able  to  hand  down  that 
tax  levied  on  you  ( 


SCHEDULE  A.  319 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  The  Treasury  reports  will  show  that  the  profits 
that  have  been  made  in  the  varnish  business  have  been  very  meager 
•\yhen  compared  with  the  investments,  owing  to  this  old-line  compe- 
tition. Self-preservation  in  business  is  the  same  as  self-preservation 
in  life. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  varnish  manufacturers  that  I  have  the  pleasure 
of  knowing  are  among  the  richest  men  of  my  acquaintance. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  am  not  one  of  your  acquaintances. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  am  sorry  to  hear  that. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  would  not  come  hi  that  class. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  think  Mr.  Harrison  was  looking  at  the  wrong  sched- 
ule. Instead  of  being  65  per  cent  it  was  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  That  was  spirit  varnish. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  The  importations  are  mostly  oil  varnish.  We  have 
developed  our  business  and  we  have  gone  abroad,  owing  to  this 
research  work — 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  duty  is  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  It  is  that  particular  duty  that  applies  to  most  of 
the  imports.  On  that  particular  point,  perhaps,  Mr.  Murphy,  whom 
you  quote,  is  very  good  authority. 

If  the  general  purpose  is  to  greatly  reduce  the  tariff  on  common 
necessities,  and  I  understand  it  is,  I  just  want  to  bring  that  point 
out  again  as  to  wrho  will  pay  this  tax.  I  have  tried  to  make  it  plain 
who  will  pay  this  tax.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  wrould  be  a  mis- 
take. We  will  pass  it  on,  and  the  great  common  people  will  have  to 
pay  for  it. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  You  make  a  distinction  between  articles  of  neces- 
sity that  are  produced  in  this  country  and  those  which  can  not  pos- 
sibly be  produced  here  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  have  made  no  distinction.  My  only  point  is 
w*ho  pays  this  tax— 

Mr.  LONGWORTH  (interposing).  You  claim  that,  where  an  article 
is  not  produced  in  this  country  and  is  imported,  necessarily  the  duty, 
whatever  it  may  be,  is  added  to  the  price. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  To  the  consumer;  that  has  been  settled,  that  the 
consumer  pays  the  duty. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Not  at  all.  It  has  been  settled  with  reference 
to  articles  which  can  not  be  produced  in  this  country,  but  by  no  means 
settled  as  to  articles  which  may  be  produced  in  this  country.  That 
is  the  reason  I  asked  you  if  you  did  not  make  a  distinction. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  These  articles  are  not  produced  or  even  found  in 
this  country,  and  we  have  to  pay  for  those  articles  an  additional  sum 
of  money — eight  hundred  and  some  odd  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  are  those  articles? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Varnish  gums,  China  nut  oil,  and  Soya  bean  oil. 
The  proposed  duties  or  tax  on  them,  on  last  year's  basis,  would  come 
to  $800,000.  My  point  is  this,  that  we  varnish  manufacturers  will 
certainly  add  that  onto  our  selling  price,  and  the  consumer  will  have 
to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  are  the  raw  materials  that  go  into  these  products 
which  you  sell? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Yes. 


320  TAEIFF   HBABINGS. 

PARAGBAPH  61— VABNI8HES. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  can  not  by  any  possibility  be  produced  in 
this  country  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  They  can  not. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  They  must  be  imported  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  you  make  that  distinction  between  foreign 
articles  of  necessity  and  articles  of  necessity  that  can  be  produced  in 
this  country,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  do  not  remember  referring  to  bringing  in  articles 
that  could  be  produced.  Do  you  mean  varnish  ?  Perhaps  you  can 
assist  me  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Raw  wool,  which  is  an  article  of  daily  necessity. 
Do  you  think  wool  should  be  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  do. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  think  that  any  article  which  is  a  daily 
necessity,  whether  it  can  be  produced  in  this  country  or  not,  should 
be  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  "Any  article"  may  be  very  broad,  but  if  it  is  of 
extreme  necessity,  I  should  say  so.  That  is  my  personal  opinion. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Of  course  finished  varnish  ought  to  be  on  the 
free  list,  too  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  would  not  object  to  it,  if  Mr.  Murphy  says  it  is 
all  right. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Any  article  of  necessity  used  in  daily  life. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Of  general  necessity;  common  necessity;  used  by 
the  common  people. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Should  be  on  the  free  list? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Provided  you  can  get  a  revenue  sufficient  to  run  the 
Government. 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Yes;  but  not  confined  to  these  things. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  do  not  believe  in  a  revenue  on  wool? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  would  not  believe  in  a  revenue  on  wool.  Those 
are  just  my  points,  gentlemen.  We  took  the  matter  up  with  the 
Senate,  and  the  Democratic  members  of  the  committee  agreed  with 
us  and  brought  in  a  minority  report,  striking  those  items  from  the 
dutiable  list.  I  hope  I  have  made  it  plain  to  you  now,  just  where 
those  goods  are  used  and  who  eventually  will  nave  to  pay  the  bill. 
That  is  my  only  object  in  coming  here. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Would  a  reduction  in  the  duties  on  varnish  result  in 
any  increased  importation  of  varnish  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Well,  that  is  questionable.  It  might.  There  is  a 
proposed  reduction,  is  there  not,  Mr.  Harrison? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  On  spirit  varnishes,  but  not  on  oil  varnishes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  means  that  competition  with  the  foreign  maker 
of  varnish  would  be  increased  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  being  so,  how  could  you  pass  on  the  duties  on 
the  raw  materials,  thus  increasing  the  price  on  your  finished  material  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  Well,  we  would  either  do  that  or  go  out  of  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  is  that  ? 


SCHEDULE  A.  321 

PARAGRAPH  51— VARNISHES. 

Mr.  C  ALLAH  AN.  We  would  either  do  that  or  go  out  of  business. 
That  is  another  case  of  self-preservation. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  varnish  people  think  that 
the  reduction  of  the  duties  on  varnish  would  result  in  a  large  increase 
in  the  imports  of  varnish  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  believe  they  think  that  way.  Of  course,  to  my 
mind,  we  are  in  advance  of  the  world  in  the  scientific  development 
of  the  varnish  business.  Germany,  within  the  last  few  years,  has 
given  us  a  very  hard  race.  It  is  because  of  the  scientific  develop- 
ment of  our  business  that  we  do  not  fear  competition  so  much. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  not  have  confidence  in  your  ability  to  com- 
pete with  the  foreign  manufacturer  by  the  reduction  of  your  price 
to  some  extent,  if  necessary,  to  so  compete  with  him  ? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  We  can  not  make  any  further  reduction  in  our 
present  prices. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  not  that  Gov.  Murphy's  idea? 

Mr.  CALLAHAN.  I  do  not  think  so,  for  we  can  not  make  any 
reduction  in  our  present  prices. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  the  committee. 

STATEMENT     SUBMITTED     BY    BERRY    BROS.     CONCERNING 
CHANGES  IN  VARNISH  SCHEDULE. 

NEW  YORK,  January  9,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Confirming  my  brief  conversation  with  you  when  intro- 
duced last  Monday  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Edwin  Sefton,  I  wish  to  put 
in  writing  our  strenuous  objection  to  any  change  being  made  in  the 
varnish  schedule,  and  particularly  so  in  what  is  known  as  spirit  var- 
nishes ;  for  if  the  duty  is  taken  off  of  these  articles,  it  will  be  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  with  the  German  manufacturers,  as  they  have  no 
internal-revenue  tax,  and  we  have  to  pay  $2.10  per  gallon  revenue 
for  every  gallon  taken  out  of  the  bonded  warehouses.  Please  give 
this  your  very  careful  consideration. 

We  are  also  very  much  opposed  to  a  duty  being  put  on  china  wood 
oil  and  soya-bean  oil,  as  it  is  impossible  to  raise  it  in  this  country, 
and  it  is  absolutely  a  raw  material. 

If  there  is  any  information  I  can  give  you  from  a  technical  stand- 
point, please  do  not  hesitate  to  call  upon  me. 

Thanking  you  for  the  courtesy  extended  me  on  Monday  at  1 
o'clock,  I  remain, 

Yours,  very  truly,  BERRY  BROS., 

Per  H.  P.  STEPHENSON. 

PARAGRAPH  52. 

Vermilion  reds,  containing  quicksilver,  dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  ten 
cents  per  pound :  when  not  containing  quicksilver  but  made  of  lead  or  con- 
taining lead,  four  and  seven-eighths  cents  per  pound. 
See  Arthur  Somers.  page  343. 
78959°— VOL  1—13 21 


322  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   53— WHITE  LEAD. 

PARAGRAPH  53. 

White  lead,  and  white  pigment  containing  lead,  dry  or  in  pulp,  or  ground 
or  mixed  with  oil,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 
For  white  lead,  see  also  Pomeroy  &  Fischer,  page  349. 

WHITE  LEAD. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  R.  S.  HTJBBARD,  REPRESENTING  THE 
PAINT  MANUFACTURERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January  7,  1913. 

To  the  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  As  chairman  of  the  tariff  committee  of  the  Paint 
Manufacturers'  Association  of  the  United  States,  I  beg  leave  to  present 
the  following  brief  on  the  subject  of  proposed  tariff  revision  as  it  may 
affect  the  interests  of  the  members  of  our  association. 

I  do  not  desire  at  this  time  to  make  any  specific  recommendations 
on  behalf  of  our  association  as  to  changes  in  the  duty  on  any  special 
item.  Briefs  and  arguments  were  presented,  both  by  our  tariff  com- 
mittee and  by  a  number  of  the  individual  members  of  this  association, 
at  the  hearings  before  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  last  year, 
when  the  proposed  Underwood  bill  was  under  consideration.  We 
venture  to  express  the  hope  that  the  arguments  and  briefs  then  sub- 
mitted will  have  due  weight  in  any  further  consideration  of  changes 
in  the  present  tariff. 

We  do  wish  to  file  an  urgent  request  that  in  making  revision  of  the 
tariff  careful  consideration  be  given  to  the  relation  between  raw  mate- 
rials and  the  finished  products  of  our  industries. 

We  submit  that  in  justice  to  the  manufacturing  industry  in  this 
country  any  reductions  in  duties  on  the  finished  product  should  be 
accompanied  by  an  equitably  adjusted  reduction  of  duty  on  the 
articles  entering  into  the  manufacture  of  that  product  as  raw  material. 

For  instance,  we  contend  that  the  duty  on  paints,  white  lead,  etc., 
of  Schedule  A  can  not  be  fairly  and  equitably  apportioned  without 
intelligent  and  careful  consideration  at  the  same  time  of  the  proposed 
duty  to  be  levied  on  pig  load  and  lead  ores;  Schedule  C. 

We  urge  further  that  due  consideration  be  given  to  the  fact  that  the 
subject  of  chemicals  and  allied  manufactures  is  necessarily  highly 
technical  in  its  nature.  We  believe,  therefore,  that  this  should  be  the 
subject  of  expert  investigation,  and  that  the  duties  levied  upon  such 
products  should  be  based  upon  the  findings  of  a  nonpartisan  board  or 
commission. 

We  also  beg  to  urge  that,  so  far  as  possible,  all  duties  be  made  spe- 
cific and  not  ad  valorem.  There  appear  to  us  to  be  many  objections 
to  the  ad  valorem  method  of  assessing  duty.  In  the  first  place,  the 
ad  valorem  duty  is  more  difficult  to  determine  and  collect  fairly.  It 
makes  it  more  difficult  for  the  manufacturer  to  figure  his  cost  in 
advance,  and  therefore  unnecessarily  increases  his  risk  of  doing  busi- 
ne^s  An  ad  valorem  duty  automatically  decreases  when  a  foreign 
manufacturer  is  (lumping  his  surplus  product  here  at  low  prices,  and 
is  automatically  increased  when  such  products  are  scarce  and  com- 
mand a  high  price.  Thus,  it  produces  to  the  Government  a  minimum 
revenue  when  imports  are  plentiful  and  tends  to  decrease  imports 


SCHEDULE   A.  323 

PARAGRAPH  54—  WHITING. 

when  prices  are  high,  because  of  the  rapidly  increasing  load  of  duty 
added  onto  the  higher  price. 

Finally,  I  wish  also  to  say  that  the  tariff  committee  of  the  Paint 
Manufacturers'  Association  will  be  only  too  glad,  at  any  time,  to 
render  any  assistance  they  may  be  able  to  give  in  expert  investigations 
to  insure  equitable  and  scientific  readjustment  of  the  present  tariff. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

R.    S.    HUBBARD, 

Chairman  Tariff  Committee  Paint  Manufacturers' 

Association  of  the  United  States. 

GRIFFIN   DRUG   CO.,    OF   PEEKSKILL,    N.    Y.,    URGES   REDUC- 
TION OF  DUTY  ON  WHITE  LEAD. 

PEEKSKILL,  N.  Y.,  January  10,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 
DEAR  SIR:  Won't  you  please  look  into  the  tariff  on  white  lead? 
We  understand  the  Smelters'  Trust,  controlled  by  the  Guggenheims, 
make  the  price  on  all  the  lead  made  in  the  United  States,  and  Mr. 
Guggenheim  has  been  in  the  Senate  voting  on  the  tariff  on  goods 
he  controls.  Reduce  the  tariff  on  lead  and  give  the  poor  man  a 
chance  to  paint  his  house,  which  he  can't  do  now. 

We  are  paying  $7  per  hundred  pounds  for  lead,  and  we  are  told 
they  (the  Lead  Trust)  are  selling  the  same  thing  in  London  for  $4. 
We  are  Progressives,  but  we  hope  you  and  President  Wilson  will 
make  good,  so  there  will  be  no  need  of  a  Progressive  Party. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

GRIFFIN  DRUG  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  54. 

Whiting  and  Paris  white,  dry,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound;  ground 
in  oil,  or  putty,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

For  Paris  white,  see  also  Frederick  N.  Tirrell,  page  131. 

WHITING. 

THE     HIGGINSON     MANUFACTURING     CO.,     OF     NEWBURGH, 
N.  Y.,  SUBMIT  BRIEF  ON  WHITING  AND  PARIS  WHITE. 

To  the  WATS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS:  We,  as  manufacturers  of  whiting  and  Paris  white,  wish  to 
enter  a  protest  against  the  proposed  reduction  in  duty  on  whiting 
and  Paris  white,  and  respectfully  request  that  the  present  tariff  on 
these  commodities  be  maintained  and  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  There  are  no  chalk  deposits  in  this  country  from  which  the 
American  manufacturer  can  draw  his  supply  of  raw  material,  hence 
all  chalk  and  cliff  stone  must  be  imported  from  England  and  France, 
and  ocean  freight  paid  on  the  same.  The  advantage  to  the  foreign 
manufacturer  is  at  once  apparent;  he  has  his  whiting  factory  adjoin- 
ing his  chalk  quarry. 

Second.  There  is"  no  demand  from  the  American  consumer  for  a 
reduction  in  the  duty  on  whiting  and  Paris  white.  The  present 


324  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  54— WHITING. 

prices  are  low,  and  the  freight  rate  usually  determines  the  market 
in  which  the  buyer  places  his  order.  There  is  no  combination  or 
or  trust  to  maintain  prices,  and  competition  is  and  always  has  been 
keen. 

Third.  The  yearly  importations  of  chalk  and  cliff  stone  amount  to 
about  100,000  tons,  which  is  manufactured  into  whiting  and  Paris 
white,  the  industry  furnishing  employment  to  laboring  men  of  the 
United  States  and  pays  them,  in  the  aggregate,  approximately 
$500,000  per  annum.  The  daily  wage  ranges  from  $1.75  to  $3,  as 
against  less  than  one-half  of  this  sum  in  the  same  industry  in  England. 

Fourth.  The  crude  chalk,  from  which  whiting  is  manufactured, 
contains  a  very  large  percentage  of  moisture,  sand,  and  flint,  which  is 
eliminated  in  the  process  of  manufacture  and  will  average  about  25 
per  cent;  in  other  words,  a  ton  of  crude  chalk  produces  only  three- 
quarters  of  a  ton'  of  whiting.  The  amount  so  lost  the  manufacturer 
in  this  country  is  obliged  to  pay  for,  both  cost  f.  o.  b.  shipping  point 
in  England  or  France  and  cost  of  ocean  freight  on  the  same. 

Fifth.  During  the  last  half  of  the  year  1912  the  cost  of  ocean  freight 
has  advanced  to  such  an  extent  the  delivered  price  of  the  crude  chalk 
to  the  manufacturer  in  the  United  States  has  advanced  approxi- 
mately 35  per  cent  to  40  "per  cent. 

Sixth.  The  industry  as  a  whole  is  not  a  large  one,  and  if  the  entire 
quantity  of  whiting  and  Paris  white  consumed  in  this  country  was 
imported  the  revenue  to  the  Government  would  be  small,  and  to 
obtain  this  would  mean  the  sacrifice  of  approximately  $500,000 
yearly  which  is  paid  to  labor. 

We  have  endeavored  to  put  before  you,  in  a  brief  way,  the  main 
facts  in  connection  with  the  industry,  and  sincerely  hope  wou  will 
retain  the  present  duty  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

THE  HIGGINSON  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
T.  H.  MILLSPAUGH,  President. 

NEWBURGH,  N.  Y.,  December  18,  1912. 

BRIEF    OF    M.  EWING    FOX    &  CO.,  NEW    YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK  CITY,  January  9,  1913. 
Hon.  STEVEN  B.  AYRES, 

Congressman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  Referring  to  proposed  changes  in  tariff  and  the  hearings  on 
Schedule  A  (paints,  oils,  and  chemicals)  by  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mit fee  of  the  I>ouse  of  Representatives: 

We  manufacture  calcimines,  paints,  and  varnishes,  in  which  some 
ofjhe  materials  that  will  be  considered  arc  used  in  large  quantities. 
We  urge  your  consideration  of  the  following  statement  and  its  presen- 
tation to  the  committee  if  you  think  best: 

Chalk  (crude  or  him]);  now  on  free  list). — Is  only  found  in  Europe, 
is  very  cheap,  and  is  used  in  great  quantities  for  the  manufacture  of 
whiting  and  Paris  white.  Any  duty  placed  upon  it  would  result  in 
considerably  higher  prices  for  the  materials  made  from  it,  reduced 
consumption  by  the  public,  loss  of  business  to  American  manufac- 


SCHEDULE   A.  325 

PARAGRAPH  54— WHITING. 

turers,  and  loss  of  employment  to  their  men.  We  strongly  protest 
against  any  tariff  being  imposed  on  this  material. 

Chalk  (ground  or  powdered;  now  on  protected  list). — Some  of  this 
is  simply  the  crude  chalk  passed  tlirough  ordinary  separating  and 
grinding  processes,  the  cost  of  which  is  considerably  more  in  America 
than  in  Europe.  We  estimate  this  manufacturing  cost  to  be  at  least 
50  per  cent  more  in  United  States  than  abroad,  and  believe  that  such 
a  duty  should  be  imposed. 

Whiting  and  Paris  white  (now  on  protected  list) . — These  two  mate- 
rials are  practically  alike,  the  latter  being  made  from  a  slightly  harder 
kind  of  chalk  and  by  a  more  elaborate  method.  The  chalk  is  dug 
from  hillsides  and  pits  adjoining  certain  European  waterways,  is  then 
crushed,  washed,  refined,  graded,  dried,  recrushed  or  ground,  packed, 
and  shipped  direct  from  adjoining  wharves  to  various  American  sea- 
ports, particularly  those  in  Canada,  Central  and  South  America. 
Very  little  of  it  is  sold  in  United  States  because  the  present  tariff  is 
sufficient  to  protect  our  manufacturers.  Most  English  manufactur- 
ers of  Whiting  and  Paris  white  are  also  owners  of  chalk  mines,  so 
that  if  the  tariff  is  lowered  sufficiently  to  enable  them  to  compete 
with  United  States  manufacturers  <to  whom  they  are  now  simply 
selling  their  crude  chalk)  the  latter  wih1  be  simply  eliminated,  their 
investments  ruined,  and  their  employees  thrown  out  of  work. 

We  made  a  careful  investigation  of  English  chalk,  whiting,  and 
Paris  white  mines  and  plants  in  1911,  and  found  the  cost  of  .produc- 
tion there  much  lower  than  in  United  States.  English  labor  was 
plentiful,  intelligent,  and  industrious,  the  average  workman  received 
$10  per  week  of  60  hours  (about  17  cents  per  hour).  The  same  man 
could  not  be  duplicated  over  here  for  less  than  $15  per  week  of  54 
hours  (about  28  cents  per  hour). 

The  English  building,  machinery,  clerical,  and  sales  costs  were  also 
much  lower  than  ours,  so  that  we  do  not  see  how  it  would  be  possible 
for  the  United  States  manufacturers  of  whiting  and  Paris  white  to 
compete,  unless  protected  by  a  tariff  of  at  least  \  cent  per  pound, 
which  is,  we  believe,  the  present  duty  on  such  material. 

Shellac  (dry  gum  in  flakes ;  now  on  free  list). — This  is  made  princi- 
pally in  the  Orient  and  is  imported  in  large  quantities.  It  is  the  crude 
material  from  which  many  other  materials,  varnishes,  and  lacquers 
are  made  in  the  United  States,  and  has  hitherto  been  admitted  free. 
The  only  effect  of  placing  a  tariff  upon  it  will  be  an  increase  in  the 
price  of  materials  made  from  it  to  the  public  and  an  increase  in 
revenue  to  the  Government.  There  are  practically  no  American 
substitutes  for  shellac.  We  protest  against  any  duty  being  imposed. 

Summary.— We  believe  that  to  as  large  an  extent  as  the  necessities 
of  the  national  finances  permit,  all  raw  or  semiraw  materials  should 
be  admitted  free,  but  all  manufactured  materials  should  be  taxed, 
particularly  those  competing  with  American  industries  already 
established,  unless  the  latter  are  members  of  a  trust  or  similar  com- 
bine. There  are  no  trusts,  combines,  or  anything  of  a  similar  nature 
manufacturing  whiting,  Paris  white,  powdered  chalk,  or  shellac 
varnishes.  All  American  manufacturers  of  these  materials  are  and 
always  have  been  competing  keenly  for  trade. 


826  TABIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  55— SULPHIDE  OF  ZINC. 

In  conclusion. — We  do  not  manufacture  powdered  (ground)  chalk, 
whiting  or  Paris  white,  but  use  these  materials  in  very  large  quanti- 
ties in  the  making  of  calcimines,  water-paints,  etc.  Our  statements 
are  thus  unprejudiced. 

If  the  present  duties  are  reduced,  we  will  simply  buy  the  whiting 
and  Paris  white  from  various  European  manufacturers.  We  believe 
this  course  will  be  also  adopted  by  our  various  competitors  and  will 
only  result  hi  injury  to  the  present  American  manufacturers  and  their 
employees. 

The  difference  in  cost  to  the  calcimine  and  paint  manufacturers 
will  be  so  small  (possibly  10  cents  per  100  pounds)  that  it  will  be  ab- 
sorbed by  us  or  by  the  dealers  to  whom  we  sell  our  products.  It  will 
not  reach  the  general  public  because  the  average  person  does  not  buy 
more  than  1  pound  annually. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

M.  EWING  Fox  &  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  55. 

Zinc,  oxide  of,  and  white  pigment  containing  zinc,  but  not  containing  lead, 
dry,  one  cent  per  pound ;  ground  in  oil,  one  and  three-fourths  cents  per  pound; 
sulfid  of  zinc  white,  or  white  sulphide  of  zinc,  one  and  one-fourth  cents  per 
pound;  chloride  of  zinc  and  sulphate  of  zinc,  one  cent  per  pound. 
See  J.  H.  Krebs,  page  300. 

SULPHIDE  OF  ZINC. 

BRIEF  OF  GRASSELLI  CHEMICAL  CO. 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO,  January  2.  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  Grasselli  Chemical  Co.  respectfully  submits  the 
following  in  support  of  its  belief  that  no  change  should  be  made  in 
the  present  tariff  rates  on  the  following  items: 

Paragraph  62.  Acetate  of  lead,  white  and  brown. 

Paragraph  60.  Sulfide  of  zinc,  or  white  sulphide  of  zinc  (lithopone). 

Paragraph  67.  Chloride  of  zinc. 

Paragraph  71.  Hyposulphite  of  soda — sulphide  of  sodium-silicate 
of  soda. 

This  company  manufactures  and  sells  the  above  chemicals. 

It  is  an  Ohio  corporation,  originally  started  in  1839,  at  Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

In  ISSo  the  company  was  incorporated  under  the  Ohio  laws. 

The  company  lias  manufacturing  plants,  warehouses,  and  dis- 
tributing stations  in  many  of  the  large  cities  of  the  country,  all  of 
which  represent  a  very  heavy  investment  and  give  employment  to 
many  thousand  men. 

The  company  is  familiar  with  the  manufacture  of  heavy  chemicals 
both  here  and  abroad,  and  from  its  experience  knows  that  Germany 
is  becoming  more  and  more  aggressive,  in  the  distribution  of  its 
products.  1o  foreign  countries,  especially  the  United  States. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  Germany  lias  two  great  advantages: 

First,  the  dill'erence  in  wages,  which  naturally  decreases  the  cost 
of  production  (see  11.  Kept.  No.  326,  pp.  305  and  370);  and  second, 


SCHEDULE  A.  327 

PABAGRAPH  55— SULPHIDE  OF  ZINC. 

the  protection  afforded  by  their  "Syndicates,"  "Cartels,"  "Selling 
associations,"  etc.,  which  are  fully  defined  in  House  Report  No.  326, 
page  379. 

These  associations  are  united  for  their  common  good,  have  the 
approval  of  the  Government,  and  prevent  individual  competition. 

A  careful  consideration  of  this  absolute  control  of  the  industry  hi 
the  principal  competing  country  must  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
would  be  an  easy  matter  for  the  German  producers  to  jointly  export 
into  this  country  any  quantity  of  goods,  even  at  a  small  individual 
loss,  for  the  purpose  of  dumping  their  surplus  production  and  thereby 
causing  a  general  demoralization  of  our  markets. 

From  the  above  it  is  also  evident  how  impossible  it  is  to  export 
similar  chemicals  from  this  country  into  Germany. 

We  therefore  feel  that  any  reductions  in  the  existing  rates  on  the 
articles  mentioned  would  result  in  an  increased  production  abroad 
and  a  greater  exportation  to  this  country,  with  the  natural  disastrous 
result  of  probably  forcing  the  American  manufacturers  either  to  dis- 
continue or  curtail  their  operations. . 

In  either  event,  a  large  number  of  American  workmen  would  be 
deprived  of  employment  and  the  foreign  producers  and  workmen 
would  reap  the  benefit. 

In  our  opinion,  and  we  earnestly  ask  your  consideration  of  it,  the 
present  rates  on  the  above  items  should  be  continued  without  change. 

No  conditions  have  arisen  since  the  enactment  of  the  present  tariff 
which  will  justify  any  reductions. 

Having  especially  in  mind  the  conditions  existing  abroad,  as  above 
set  forth,  we  submit  the  following  list  of  chemicals,  all  of  which  are 
manufactured  by  this  company,  and  none  of  which  now  carry  a  pro- 
hibitive dutv,  tieing  freely  imported,  as  the  customs  statistics  will 
prove,  and  therefore  request  that  no  changes  be  made,  and  that  the 
present  rates  be  allowed  to  continue,  and  with  special  reference  to 
paragraph  62,  acetate  of  lead,  which  has  had  a  differential  rate 
between  white  and  brown,  and  also  paragraph  71,  sulphide  of  soda, 
in  which  special  distinction  is  made  between  the  product  containing 
a  percentage  over  and  under  35  per  cent  of  sulphide  of  soda,  as  more 
fully  explained  later. 

Paragraph  62.  Acetate  of  lead,  white  and  brown. — The  present  duty 
of  3  cents  per  pound  on  the  white  and  2  cents  per  pound  on  the  brown 
should  remain  unchanged,  especially  the  differential  of  1  cent  as  be- 
tween the  two  grades,  for  the  reason  that  the  white  is  more  refined  and 
expensive  to  manufacture. 

The  average  selling  price  of  the  acetate  of  lead  and  the  average  cost 
do  not  permit  of  more  than  a  fair  manufacturer's  profit  as  the  duty 
stands  to-day,  and  by  reason  of  the  cheaper  material  supply  and 
cheaper  labor  conditions  of  the  foreign  manufacturers  the  manufac- 
ture of  these  articles  in  this  country  would  greatly  suffer  if  the  present 
duties  were  lowered.  A  domestic  overproduction  also  exists  in  this 
country,  and  which  fact  should  be  taken  into  consideration. 

Paragraph  66.  Sulphide  of  zinc  (lithopone). — Even  under  the  pres- 
ent duty  the  importations  have  largely  increased — in  1910,  2,300,000 
pounds 'and  in  1911,  5,400,000  pounds^  It  will  therefore  be  seen  that 
the  duty  is  not  at  all  prohibitive  and  that  the  foreign  manufacturer 
is  an  active  competitor  in  this  market.  In  view  of  these  large 


328  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  55— SULPHIDE  OF  ZINC. 

importations  any  further  reduction  is  unnecessary  and  the  Govern- 
ment is  now  receiving  a  substantial  revenue  from  the  article.  It  is 
also  proposed  to  change  the  specific  duty  to  an  ad  valorem  duty. 
We  earnestlv  urge  that  this  be  not  done,  but  that  a  specific  rate  of 
duty  be  continued.  Under  an  ad  valorem  rate,  by  undervaluation, 
the  Government  is  often  deprived  of  its  legitimate  revenue,  which 
can  not  occur  under  a  specific  rate  of  duty.  At  best,  the  operation 
of  an  ad  valorem  rate  is  very  unsatisfactory  and  often  leads  to  endless 
disputes.  Also  under  the  specific  duty  all  parties  concerned  know 
always  what  rate  of  duty  must  be  paid,  whereas  under  the  ad  valorem 
duty  the  rate  must  constantly  fluctuate  with  the  ruling  selling  prices. 

Paragraph  67.  Chloride  of  zinc. — The  principal  crude  material  of 
this  article  is  zinc.  A  review  of  the  market  prices  of  spelter  (which 
can  be  obtained  from  the  mineral  industry)  shows  a  constantly  rising 
price  for  spelter.  The  value  of  spelter  governs  the  price  of  the  zinc 
required  for  the  manufacture  of  this  article.  On  this  account  the 
American  producer  has  paid  more  for  his  crude  material  during  the 
past  few  years  than  ever  before.  The  present  duty  is  not  prohibitive 
and  permits  the  foreign  manufacturer  to  compete  with  the  American 
market,  and  he  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  very  strong  and  active  com-, 
petitor,  importing  during  1910,  1,200,000  pounds,  and  in  1911, 
1,300,000  pounds. 

Paragraph  71.  Hyposulphite  of  soda. — Statistics  show  that  large 
quantities  of  this  article  have  been  imported  during  the  past  years. 
During  recent  years  there  has  been  a  falling  off  of  importations,  due 
to  severe  domestic  competition,  which  has  reduced  the  average  sell- 
ing price  to  practically  cost,  the  domestic  consumer  naturally  having 
the  benefit  of  these  low  prices.  Nevertheless,  under  these  extremely 
low  prices  during  1911,  29,000  pounds  were  imported.  The  duty  has 
enabled  the  American  manufacturer  to  successfully  compete  with  the 
foreign  manufacturer,  and  any  reduction  would  seriously  interfere 
with  the  domestic  production  of  this  article. 

Paragraph  67.  Sulphide  of  soda. — The  present  tariff  provides  a 
rate  of  three-eighths  cent  per  pound  for  the  article  containing  less 
than  35  per  cent  of  sulphide  of  soda,  and  three-fourths  cent  per  pound 
for  all  containing  over  35  per  cent  of  sulpliide  of  soda  (otherwise 
known  as  concentrated).  The  reason  for  that  action  was  because 
the  foreign  manufacturer  had  perfected  the  process  of  fusing  and 
concentrating  the  product,  so  that  it  contained  from  60  to  62  per  cent 
of  sulphide  of  soda,  as  against  30  to  35  per  cent  of  the  then  commer- 
cial article,  and  was  importing  the  concentrated  under  the  old  rate 
of  duty,  which  netted  the  Government  only  one-half  what  it  shou  ! 
have  received,  for  there  was  practically  being  imported  2  pounds 
instead  of  1.  The  imports  show  in  1910,  596,000  pounds,  and  in 
1911,  456,000  pounds.  The  duty  is  now  being  paid  according  to 
the  strength,  and  if  the  two  qualities  are  not  differentiated  the 
revenue,  instead  of  being  greater  than  it  now  is,  will  be  considerably 
less,  for  the  foreign  manufactuer  will  export  all  his  product  in  the 
concentrated  form,  and  it  would  also  work  a  serious  hardship  on  the 
domestic  producers  if  this  were  permitted,  and  we  strongly  urge  the 
differential  be  maintained  as  it  now  is.  Government  statistics  have 
been  computed  during  the  last  two  years  on  the  two  grades,  and  if 


SCHEDULE   A.  329 

PARAGRAPH  55— SULPHIDE  OF  ZINC. 

only  one  duty,  regardless  of  strength,  is  adopted  it  can  readily  be 
seen  that  the  revenue  would  be  materially  decreased. 

Paragraph  71.  Silicate  of  soda. — Under  the  present  tariff  there  WHS 
imported  during  the  past  year  1,200,000  pounds,  which  will  show 
that  the  present  duty  is  not  prohibitive,  and  the  lowering  of  this 
duty,  it  seems  to  us,  is  unnecessary,  and  will  not  give  increased 
revenue  to  the  Government. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  GRASSELLI  CHEMICAL  Co., 
E.  R.  GRASSELLI,  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  OF  BECKTON  CHEMICAL  CO.,  NEWARK,  N.  J. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  February  6,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  Referring  to  our  recent  com^ersation  in  regard  to  an  article 
known  as  lithopone,  I  beg  to  state  that  lithopone  is  a  compound 
of  the  chemical  products  in  which  are  used  barytes  and  sulpnid  of 
zinc.  It  is  not  known  eo  nomine  in  the  tariff  act,  but  is  a  well 
known  article  of  commerce  both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  and 
when  imported  into  this  country  it  is  classified  as  sulphid  or  sulphide 
of  zinc  under  paragraph  55  of  the  present  tariff  act  and  pays  duty 
of  \\  cents  per  pound.  The  barium  sulphate  in  the  form  of  barytes, 
when  properly  mixed  with  zinc  sulphide  produces  this  pigment 
which  is  commonly  sold  under  the  name  of  lithoppne,  and  it  is 
extensively  used  in  the  manufacture  of  flat  coat  paints,  linoleum, 
oil  cloth,  and  the  rubber  industries.  The  importation  of  this  arti- 
cle into  this  country  is  in  increasing  quantities,  and  for  the  year 
ending  June,  1911,  5,409,520  pounds  of  lithopone  were  imported 
into  the  United  States,  paying  a  duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound.  This, 
I  am  told,  is  about  one-eighth  of  the  total  amount  of  lithopone 
produced  per  annum  in  the  United  States.  The  rate  of  1}  cents 
per  pound  was  equivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  rate  in  1890  of  43  per 
cent,  in  1905  of  48  per  cent,  in  1910  of  41.85  per  cent,  and  while  I 
have  not  the  figures  for  the  last  year,  I  presume  the  ad  valorem 
equivalent  would  be  about  40  per  cent.  The  barytes  entering  into 
the  manufacture  of  lithopone  pays  a  duty  of  $1.50  per  ton  under 
paragraph  42  of  the  present  act,  and  sulphid  of  zinc,  or  white  sul- 
phide of  zinc,  pays  \\  cents  per  pound  as  stated  above,  under  para- 
graph 55  of  the  present  act,  and  as  I  have  already  stated,  lithopone, 
when  imported,  is  classified  under  paragraph  55  by  similitude. 

The  manufacture  of  lithopone  in  this  country  is  a  comparatively 
new  industry,  and  has  been  established  within  the  last  fifteen  or 
twenty  years,  and  it  is  substantially  upon  a  competitive  basis  with 
the  European  article,  as  is  shown  by  the  increasing  importations 
into  this  country,  and  it  wrould  seem  that  the  industry  would  not 
bear  a  much  lower  rate  of  duty.  We  would,  however,  suggest 
that  sulphid  of  zinc,  or  white  sulphide  of  zinc,  pay  a  duty  of  I  cent 
per  pound,  and  in  as  much  as  you  and  your  committee  are  in  favor 
of  ad  valorem  rates,  may  I  suggest  that  the  rate  be  made  30  per 


330  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

cent  ad  valorem,  but  not  less  than  1  cent  per  pound.  This,  as  you 
will  notice,  will  be  a  reduction  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  from  the 
present  duty. 

In  this  connection  I  desire  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  briefs 
which  have  already  been  filed  and  have  become  a  part  of  the  printed 
record  of  the  hearings  upon  the  chemical  schedule, 
Believe  me  to  be,  with  very  great  respect, 

CHARLES  P.  SEARLE, 
Counsel  for  Beckton  Chemical  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

PABAGBAPH   C6. 

All  painiJ,  colors,  pigments,  stains,  lakes,  crayons,  including  charcoal 
era  •  ns  or  fusains,  smalts  and  frostings,  whether  crude  or  dry  or  mixed, 
cr  ground  with  water  or  oil  or  with  solutions  other  than  oil,  not  otherwise 
specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  all 
glazes,  fluxes,  enamels,  and  colors  used  only  in  the  manufacture  of  ceramic, 
enameled,  and  glass  articles,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  all  paints,  colors, 
and  pigments,  commonly  known  as  artists'  paints  or  colors,  whether  in 
tubes,  pans,  cakes,  or  other  forms,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  ceramic  colors,  see  H.  J.  Krebs,  page  300;  C.  K.  Williams  &  Co.,  page  307;  and 

F.  A.  Rcichard,  page  308. 

PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  ARTHUR  S.  SOMERS,  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  here  on  behalf 
of  the  manufacturers  of  dry  colors  of  the  United  States,  and  I  want 
to  say  at  the  outset  that,  in  order  that  the  committee  may  under- 
stand it  from  our  point  of  view,  we  consider  the  manufacture  of  dry 
colors  as  the  last  step  in  the  chemistry  of  the  manufacture  of  paint 
and  printing  ink.  The  dry  color  manufacturer  assembles  the  various 
ingredients,  the  chemicals  and  aniline  dyes,  and  pigments  of  various 
kinds,  and,  by  a  chemical  process,  combines  them  and  turns  out  the 
finished  product,  which,  from  his  point,  requires  just  the  skill  of  the 
manipulator  to  mix  them  in  certain  vehicles  for  the  purpose  of  making 
paint,  printing  ink,  or  wall-paper  color.  So  that  we  represent  the 
last  step  in  the  chemistry  of  paint  and  ink  making,  and  we  believe  that, 
because  of  this  unique  position,  any  consideration  tending  toward  a 
revision  of  the  tariff  on  dry  colors  should  take  into  consideration  at 
the  same  time  a  revision  of  the  various  items  leading  up  to  and 
through  these  channels,  the  acids,  the  coal-tar  dyes,  and  other  pig- 
ments; and  that  when  the  committee  desires  to  reduce  the  tariff  on 
dry  colors,  if  that  be  the  principle  and  policy  of  the  Congress — and  I 
assume  it  is — that  they  take  into  consideration  the  effect  that  the  duty 
levied  upon  acids,  coal-tar  dyes,  and  other  pigments  entering  into  the 
manufacture  of  dry  colors  will  have  upon  the  dry  color  industry  of 
this  country. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  All  of  those  have  been  reduced  in  the  bill,  have 
they  not  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Well,  substantially  all  of  them? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes. 


SCHEDULE  A.  331 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Ninety-nine  per  cent  of  all  the  materials  you  see 
in  the  manufacture  of  colors  have  been  substantially  reduced  by  the 
bill,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  They  have  been  reduced,  but  not  altogether  sub- 
stantially. I  will  try  to  point  that  out  briefly.  I  have  prepared  a 
brief,  which  I  will  not  read,  but  will  file  it  with  the  committee,  and 
just  direct  your  attention  to  some  of  the  important  features  of  it. 

Answering  Mr.  Harrison's  question:  In  section  56  of  the  proposed 
tariff — and  I  assume  you  have  under  consideration  H.  R.  20182,  and, 
in  the  absence  of  any  more  definite  information  to  the  contrary,  I 
will  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  that  is  the  bill  that  is  in  the 
minds  of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  and  probably  may  form  the 
basis  of  your  conclusion  when  you  present  your  bill  for  consideration 
in  the  House  and  in  the  Senate — in  section  56  of  the  present  tariff 
law,  that  is,  the  Payne  law,  the  law  of  1909,  is  imposed  a  duty  of  30 
per  cent  ad  valorem  on  all  paints,  colors,  pigments,  etc.,  not  other- 
wise specuied. 

Section  68  of  H.  R.  20182  reduces  the  duty  from  30  to  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  The  colors  included  in  section  56  for  the  most  part 
contain  considerable  quantities  of  coal-tar  dyes,  at  present  dutiable 
in  paragraph  15  of  the  law  of  1909  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Para- 
graph 21  of  H.  R.  20182  proposes  a  reduction  of  5  per  cent,  making 
the  duty  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  I  submit  that  is  not,  when  con- 
sidering the  reduction  in  duty  on  dry  colors  as  comprehended  in 
section  56  of  the  present  law,  a  substantial  reduction  in  coal-tar 
dyes,  from  our  viewpoint. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  do  you  think  the  reduction  should  be  in 
coal-tar  dyes  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  not  arguing  for  a  reduction,  but  we  ask  in  the 
brief  for  an  equalization,  whatever  may  be  the  judgment  of  the 
committee.  If  it  is  20  per  cent  on  coal-tar  dyes,  all  right;  we  will 
be  satisfied  with  20  per  cent  on  dry  colors.  We  make  no  protest 
against  the  tendency  or  policy  of  this  committee  toward  a  revision 
of  the  tariff  downward,  and,  personally,  I  could  not  take  that  atti- 
tude; I  would  not  be  here  were  I  not  in  sympathy  with  a  sane  and 
equitable  revision  of  the  tariff  downward,  because  I  expect  on  next 
Monday,  in  my  State,  to  vote  for  the  man  as  an  elector  who  will  be 
called  to  sign  whatever  bill  is  presented. 

That  is  my  position.  I  want  to  be  perfectly  fair,  and  I  want  to 
have  it  understood  that  I  am  not  coming  here  seeking  protection  for 
an  industry  that  does  not  require  a  prohibitive  tariff. 

That  is  our  position;  so 'I  submit  that  it  is  unfair  to  reduce  the 
tariff  on  our  manufactured  product  from  30  per  cent  to  20  per  cent, 
and  reduce  the  tariff  on  the  materials  that  we  are  compelled  to  use, 
many  of  which  are  imported,  as  indicated  from  the  report  here, 
something  like  $6,000,000,  I  think,  under  the  same  law  during  1911, 
while  it  is  estimated  that  it  will  be  something  like  $7,000,000  under 
H.  R.  20182,  to  25  per  cent, 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  large  a  proportion  of  the  materials  that  you 
use  are  made  up  of  these  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors,  which  are  reduced  in 
the  present  bill  from  30  to  25  per  cent? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Probably  50  per  cent. 


332  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  66— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  do  the  rest  of  the  materials  used  in  your 
manufacture  consist  of? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Chrome  colors,  chrome  greens  and  chrome  yellows, 
all  of  which  are  reduced  in  this  proposed  bill;  but  we  make  no  protest 
against  that.  I  call  your  attention  to  that  in  my  brief,  because  the 
committee  have  taken  into  consideration  the  lead  pigments  and  salts 
and  potashes  and  other  things  that  we  use,  and  they  have  corre- 
spondingly reduced  the  tariff  on  those  materials.  But  we  make  no 
complaint  whatsoever. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Most  of  those  reductions  have  been  more  than  the 
reductions  in  your  finished  products  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  think,  if  you  will  read  the  bill,  you  will  find  that 
some  of  them  are  reduced  from  60  to  15  per  cent. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  have  read  the  bill  and  have  studied  it  very  carefully 
and  I  have  in  mind  now  the  reduction  on  pig  lead,  for  instance, 
which  is  not  at  all  commensurate  with  the  reduction  which  has  been 
made  on  the  product  into  which  pig  lead  enters  as  a  basis,  all  of  those 
things  which  we  use  as  a  basis  for  our  chrome  colors.  We  can  live 
under  that,  because  these  things  are  very  cheap  in  price,  and  we  do 
not  fear  competition  from  abroad  on  the  cheap  colors  we  manufacture. 
It  is  on  the  fancy  goods  and  the  high-priced  goods  that  we  have  the 
most  competition.  We  have  competition  to-day,  and  we  are  not 
asking  you  to  exclude  competition.  We  invite  competition. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  committee  really  would  like  to  know  what 
would  be,  in  your  opinion,  a  fair  rate  upon  coal-tar  dyes  and  colors, 
in  view  of  the  proposed  reduction  from  30  to  20  per  cent  on  dry  colors. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  That  is  so.  I  shall  insist  upon  asking  for  a  reduction 
in  coal-tar  dye  from  30  to  20  per  cent,  if  the  committee  desires  to 
adhere  to  the  appeals  made  on  behalf  of  the  coal-tar  dye  manufac- 
turers of  this  country  and  reduce  the  duty  to  25  per  cent  from  30  per 
cent;  that  is,  to  treat  us  just  exactly  the  same.  In  that  event,  we 
shall  have  no  complaint.  I  think  that  is  a  fair  attitude  for  a  manu- 
facturer to  assume.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  that  I  can  state  that 
would  be  more  reasonable  than  that. 

Again,  I  want  to  say  that  you  have  taken  alizarine,  paranitrani- 
line  and  alpha  naphthylamine,  which  enter  very  largely  into  the 
manufacture  of  these  finished  products,  such  as  are  printed  in  para- 
graph 56  of  the  Payne  bill.  You  propose  to  take  them  from  the 
free  list  and  put  a  10  per  cent  dut}'  on  them.  There  you  are  hitting 
us  again;  so  we  are  getting  it  both  coming  and  going;  we  are  whip- 
sawed  both  ways.  You  take  the  raw  material  that  we  use  and  put 
it  on  the  dutiable  list  with  a  tariff  of  10  per  cent.  You  reduce  some 
of  the  materials  that  we  use  from  30  to  25  per  cent,  but  you  hit  us 
by  reducing  others  from  30  to  20  per  cent.  I  do  not  know  for  what 
reason  :  but  we  are  not  quarreling  with  the  duty  of  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Don't  you  realize  that  it  is  a  Democratic  tariff 
that  you  have  before  you  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  realize  it. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  say  you  are  a  Democrat,  and  still  you  are 
objecting  to  it. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No.  We  realize  that  the  committee  is  not  devoid  of 
all  reason.  Some  time  ago  I  made  up  my  mind  that  when  the  next 


SCHEDULE  A.  333 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

House  came  into  power,  we  manufacturers  could  appear  here,  and 
such  arguments  that  we  might  present  would  be  listened  to  carefully 
and  considered,  and  we  would  get  our  just  due.  We  still  have  hope. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Don't  you  think  it  would  be  fair  for  other  manu- 
facturers to  ask  for  the  same  thing  that  you  are  asking  for  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Don't  you  realize  that  throughout  this  entire 
chemical  schedule  the  manufacturer  in  every  case  is  getting  just 
what  you  are  getting  in  your  case — the  double-cross  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  afraid — 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  his  raw  materials  are  being  increased,  and 
his  finished  product  reduced  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  afraid  that  is  true. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  can  you  as  a  Democrat,  come  here  and  ask 
that  the  Democratic  tariff  policy  be  changed  as  to  your  particular 
business  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Because  I  have. not  lost  faith  in  the  Democratic 
Party.  I  still  believe  that  the  majority  of  this  committee  will  come 
to  our  way  of  thinking. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then,  when  you  voted  the  Democratic  ticket 
this  fall,  you  knew  what  had  been  done  in  this  chemical  bill  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Exactly.  And  I  might  state  that  I  do  not  think  for 
one  moment  that,  even  though  the  bill  may  pass  both  Houses,  the 
President  will  sign  it.  He  has  previously  vetoed  a  similar  bill. 

Mr.  HILL.  Has  not  the  President  elect  expressed  his  approval  of 
all  these  bills? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  As  I  understand  it,  and  one  of  the  reasons  why  I 
supported  him  is,  that  he  has  expressed  approval  of  the  policy — 

Mr.  HILL.  No;  but  of  this  individual  legislation? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Would  you  like  to  have  me  read  his  statement,  so  far  as 
one  of  them  is  concerned  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  do  not  want  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee 
for  that.  I  have  read  Mr.  Wilson's  speeches  and  I  have  heard  his 
speeches  and  I  have  made  speeches  on  the  same  platform  myself. 

Mr.  HILL.  Did  you  make  speeches  that  were  any  different  from 
the  policy  which  this  committee  is  following  now  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  None  whatever.  I  am  in  sympathy  with  the  policy 
of  tariff  revision  downward,  but  I  want  equitable  revision;  that 
is  all. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  do  not  want  to  be  hurt  yourself  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  be  hurt,  if  you  put  me  on  a 
competitive  basis  with  the  foreigners. 

Mr.  LONGWORTII.  You  supported  this  Democratic  policy  on  the 
theory  that  Mr.  Wilson  and  this  committee  would  be  open  to  receive 
suggestions  if  you  got  a  chance  to  talk  to  them  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Somers,  I  would  be  very  glad,  if  you  have 
not  alreadv  included  it  in  }T>ur  brief — if  it  is  in  there  it  is  all  right, 
and  we  will  consider  it  when  we  reach  it,  but  if  it  is  not  in  there — I 
would  be  glad  if  you  will  file  with  your  brief  a  statement  making  a 
relative  comparison  showing  how  it  would  cut  your  raw  materials. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  have  included  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 


334  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLOBS,  ETC. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  consider  it. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  All  that  we  ask  for  is  an  equalization;  that  is  all. 

Now,  we  pass  on  to  the  question  of  the  vermilion  red,  containing 
quicksilver.  That  carries  a  reduction  of  from  10  cents  per  pound  to 
7.5  cents  per  pound.  I  think  I  made  myself  perfectly  clear  at  the 
hearings  before  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  on  this  very  bill,  when 
I  said:  "If  you  pass  this  paragraph  we  ask  you  to  take  into  considera- 
tion at  the  same  time  the  duty  on  quicksilver,  which  is  included  in 
that  other  schedule."  Quicksilver  is  in  the  metal  schedule,  and  I  was 
informed  at  that  time  that  it  was  expected  to  reduce  the  tariff  on 
quicksilver  in  the  metal  schedule.  If  that  be  true,  then  we  have  no 
quarrel  with  it;  but  we  want  to  keep  that  in  mind,  for  the  reason  that 
to  put  under  10  cents  per  pound  duty  a  great  proportion — and  by  a 
great  proportion  I  do  not  mean  10  or  15  per  cent  or  any  small  pro- 
portion— but  a  great  proportion  of  the  quicksilver  vermilion,  so  called, 
that  is  used  in  this  country,  is  imported  from  Europe,  even  though 
there  is  a  duty  against  it  of  10  cents.per  pound.  So,  if  you  reduce  it 
still  further,  without  giving  us  some  reduction  in  the  duty  on  quick- 
silver, you  wipe  us  out  completely. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  will  observe  that  there  is  a  reduction  in  ver- 
milion red  containing  quicksilver  from  17.5  per  cent  to  15  per  cent. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes;  that  is  about  what  it  amounts  to,  from  10  cents 
per  pound  to  7.5  cents  per  pound. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Quicksilver  was  reduced  from  14  per  cent  to  10  per 
cent  under  the  bill  that  passed  the  House. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  suppose  you  have  heard  the  evidence  here  that  the 
policy  of  this  committee  is  to  put  a  tariff  on  these  articles  going  into 
your  manufactures,  like  quicksilver,  in  order  to  tax  the  manufacturer. 
You  have  heard  that,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  have  not  heard  it,  but  I  do  not  question  that  it  has 
been  stated. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  was  stated  yesterday. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  was  not  here  yesterday. 

Mr.  PAYNE .  Are  von  in  harmony  with  such  a  policy  as  that  to  put 
a  tax  upon  all  of  those  materials  you  use  that  enter  into  the  manu- 
facture of  your  goods? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Xo;  I  am  not  wholly  in  sympathy  with  that  policy, 
and  I  do  not  think  that  it  tends  to  the  best  interest  of  the  country. 
However,  I  am  not  prepared  to  discuss  that  now,  although  I  would 
like  very  much  to  discuss  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  am  afraid  you  are  a  victim  of  misplaced  confidence. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  not  so  certain  about  that,  Mr.  Payne.  Perhaps 
I  have  made  some  mistakes  in  my  time,  but  I  am  young  yet,  and 
have  an  opportunity  to  correct  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  On  coal-tar  dyes  the  duty  has  been  reduced  to  20  per 
cent.  Do  you  know  the  cost  of  manufacturing  these  dyes  here  and 
abroad  ? 

Mr  SOMEKS    Not  the  slightest.      I  have  no  knowledge  of  it. 

Mr  PAYNE.  You  want  to  have  that  done  for  your  special  accom- 
modation, and  not  because  you  think  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  that 
duty,  and  still  preserve  that  competition  between  our  people  and  the 
people  abroad  that  are  manufacturing  coal-tar  dyes? 


SCHEDULE   A.  335 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  believe  it  is  perfectly  equitable  to  comprehend  the 
both  materials,  the  coal-tar  dye  and  the  finished  product,  as  being 
closely  related  to  one  another. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  that  is  an  addition  to  your  business? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  departing  from  your  view. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Naturally,  as  other  men  do,  I  guess. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  thought  it  would  result  in  a  change  in  your  opinion 
as  to  their  being  able  to  manufacture  here  when  they  get  this  sched- 
ule into  effect. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Of  course,  I  am  not  not  arguing  for  another  man's 
business,  nor  do  I  want  to  attack  any  other  industry  in  this  country; 
but  I  wish  to  emphasize  the  point  that  with  every  reduction  you 
make  in  our  colors,  you  give  us  just  the  same  reduction  in  the  ma- 
terials that  we  can  use. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Are  the  duties  on  this  article  that  you  are  here  talking 
about  under  the  present  law  prohibitive? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  are  competitive,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  So  far  as  your  industries  are  concerned,  the  present 
law  meets  your  definition  of  a  competitive  duty  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Exactly,  sir.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  the  present 
law.  We  have  been  getting  along  under  it  very  well  indeed.  I  have 
studied  the  Payne  law,  and  have  lived  under  the  Payne  bill,  and 
expect  to  live  even  under  this  bill,  if  it  is  equitably  adjusted.  That 
is  all. 

Now,  I  am  sorry  to  have  taken  so  much  time,  and  I  do  not  want  to 
exceed  my  limit,  gentlemen,  but  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  about 
blues — Chinese,  Berlin,  and  Prussian  blues — which  are  also  included 
in  this  bill.  They  carry  a  reduction  from  the  present  tariff  of  8  cents 
per  pound  to  20  per  cent,  or  not  less  than  3  cents  per  pound. 

Now,  the  chief  article  that  we  use  in  the  manufacture  of  blues  is 
prussiate  of  potash.  It  is  proposed  to  reduce  prussiate  of  potash 
from  4  cents  per  pound  to  1.25  cents  per  pound;  and  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  mat  while  that  may  appear  to  be  a  reduction  of  2.75 
cents  per  pound  on  raw  materials,  it  is  not,  for  the  reason  that  a  larger 
quantity  of  prussiate  of  potash  is  required  for  the  manufacture  of  blue 
than  you  really  get  back.  For  instance,  we  require  120  pounds  of 
prussiate  of  potash  to  make  100  pounds  of  blue,  so  that  in  considering 
the  change  in  the  tariff  on  our  prussiate  of  potash  it  is  well  to  bear  in 
mind  that  there  is  always  an  excess  quantity  used  that  does  not  come 
back  to  a  manufacturer  of  Prussian  blue. 

I  call  your  attention,  further,  to  the  fact  that  under  the  Payne  law 
a  volume  of  200,000  pounds  of  this  blue  was  imported  during  1911. 
That  is  a  considerable  part  of  the  consumption  of  blues  in  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  HILL.  Taking  them  generally,  there  was  more  exported  than 
imported,  was  there  not  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  speaking  of  blues,  now.  I  do  not  believe  any 
blues  could  be  exported:  but  certainly  200,000  pounds  was  imported. 
We  have  again  imported  200,000  pounds,  which  is  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  total  quantity  consumed  in  America  under  the  8-cent 


336  TABLET   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

clause,  and  I  will  leave  you  to  judge  how  much  more  would  be 
imported  under  the  3-cent  clause  and  how  little  opportunity  the 
American  manufacturer  would  have  to  compete. 

When  the  Wilson  bill  was  in  effect,  years  ago,  under  the  Cleveland 
administration — and  some  reference  has  been  made  to  it  this  morn- 
ing— W6j  as  manufacturers  of  blue,  imported  bronze  blue,  which  is  a 
certain  kind  of  Paris  blue,  because  it  was  far  more  to  our  advantage  to 
import  blue  than  it  was  to  manufacture  it.  That  gave  us  a  duty  of 
3  cents  per  pound,  and  we  might  get  back  to  that  same  condition;  so 
that  we  hope  you  will  reconsider  your  determination  in  this  matter, 
and  not  make  the  cut  quite  so  severe.  Instead  of  reducing  it  to  this 
extent,  if  you  should  reduce  it  about  25  per  cent  of  the  present  tariff, 
and  carry  with  it  the  same  reduction  that  you  have  proposed  in  prus- 
siate  of  potash,  then  we  would  be  pretty  nearly  right,  and  be  on  the 
same  competitive  basis  as  we  are  to-day. 

We  enjoy  no  monopoly  of  the  market,  as  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
a  large  percentage  of  the  consumption  in  this  country  has  been 
imported. 

Now,  the  last  article  to  which  I  wish  to  draw  your  attention — and 
I  want  to  say  here  in  passing  that,  coming  bac£  to  the  statement  I 
made  earlier,  as  far  as  chrome  colors  are  concerned,  we  make  no  pro- 
test against  the  reduction  in  these,  because  you  have  suggested  reduc- 
tions in  the  lead  products  that  form  the  basis  of  these  colors,  and  we 
have  no  quarrel  whatever  with  that — this  last  article  to  which  I  wish 
to  draw  your  attention  is  Paris  green. 

We  have  taken  Paris  green  and  London  purple  and  have  com- 
bined the  two.  Let  me  ask  the  committee  to  divide  these  two 
insecticides,  for  the  reason  that  they  bear  no  relation  to  each  other. 
Paris  green  is  made  the  world  over.  It  is  made  in  America  very 
extensively;  several  million  pounds  annually  are  made  and  sold  to 
the  farmers  in  this  country.  There  is  not  a  pound  of  London  purple 
made  in  America.  I  believe  that  is  exclusively  made  in  England, 
and  by  but  one  concern.  London  purple  does  not  come  in  competi- 
tion with  Paris  green  at  all.  London  purple  has  some  advantage 
over  Paris  green,  as  a  spray  for  certain  kinds  of  cotton  worms.  Paris 
green  has  an  advantage  over  London  purple  as  an  insecticide  in  other 
directions;  so  wo  would  ask  you  to  divide  the  two.  Paris  green  is 
the  only  insecticide  that  is  not  on  the  free  list.  Now,  a  large  quantity 
of  Paris  green  is  made  in  Canada,  just  across  the  line.  Canada  has 
imposed  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  on  Paris  green,  and  we  have  tried  to 
go  there,  and  have  been  excluded  absolutely  from  the  Canadian 
market.  We  can  not  go  there  and  sell  our  goods.  The  Canadian 
does  not  come  here,  except  in  a  very  limited  way.  There  has  been 
some  imported;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  remember  that  there  was  a 
quarter  of  a  pound  package  of  Paris  green  that  was  made  in  Canada. 
If  you  put  Paris  green  on  the  free  list,  you  are  going  to  wipe  out  this 
pipe  dream,  and  you  are  going  to  wipe  out  every  Paris  green  factory 
in  the  United  States.  So  that  we  are  complaining  to  you,  and  I  am 
telling  you  something  that  is  absolutely  a  fact,  for  the  reason  that 
the  Canadian  importer  is  but  a  few  miles  north  of  us,  and  there  are 
concerns  manufacturing  Paris  green  in  Detroit,  in  Indianapolis,  in 
Chicago,  and  in  Cleveland,  and  it  is  a  very  easy  matter  for  them  to 
step  across  the  border,  because  these  concerns  have  plants  already 


SCHEDULE  A.  337 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

in  Canada  making  other  lines  of  goods,  and  enjoying  a  share  of  the 
Canadian  markets,  and  coming  into  the  States  with  their  surplus 
products  and  selling  their  green  here  against  the  home  manufacturer, 
who  can  not  compete,  unless  he  has  some  duty  that  will  represent 
just  about  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor — not  the  difference  in 
the  cost  of  materials,  because  we  do  not  know  that  there  is  any 
difference. 

You  are  putting  blue  vitriol  on  the  free  list.  Arsenic  is  on  the  free 
list;  acetic  acid  is  on  the  free  list.  That  would  not  be  imported,  any- 
way, because  it  contains  so  much  water  that  nobody  could  afford  to 
pay  the  freight  on  the  water.  But  you  are  keeping  soda  ash  on  the 
dutiable  list,  one-eighth  of  a  cent  per  pound,  which  amounts  to 
probably  20  per  cent  of  the  cost;  but  I  shall  not  press  that  as  a 
reason.  However,  we  do  ask  that  you  give  us  at  least  as  much  pro- 
tection in  the  matter — and  I  hate  to  use  the  word — but  as  much 
protection  in  the  matter  as  Canada  is  giving  to  her  manufacturers. 
That  is  ah1  I  ask  for. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  the  Canadian  tariff  on  Paris  green? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Ten  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Where  is  it  made? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  It  is  made  in  Toronto  by  the  Canada  Paint  Works. 
Sherwin-Williams  have  a  factory  over  there.  I  believe  they  ab- 
sorbed the  Canada  Paint  Cov  and  are  manufacturing  Paris  green  in 
Canada. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  we  export  any  into  Canada  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Not  a  pound  to  my  knowledge;  not  a  pound  in  the 
last  10  years.  I  have  not  been  able  to  trace  a  single  pound. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Does  England  export  any  there  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  To  Canada? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  you  not  get  your  raw  materials  just  as  cheap 
as  the  Canadians  get  theirs  ?  Do  we  not  export  immense  quantities 
of  sulphate  of  copper  ?  That  shows  that  we  are  able  to  produce  the 
raw  materials  for  the  manufacturer — 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Do  you  know  at  what  price  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  mere  fact  that  we  export  it  satisfies  me  that 
the  Americans  can  get  their  raw  materials  cheaper  than  the  manu- 
facturers of  other  countries. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  But  that  does  not  satisfy  the  man  who  pays  the 
freight.  He  pays  4J  cents  a  pound  for  blue  vitriol  to  be  used  in 
this  country,  while  he  can  buy  that  blue  vitriol  for  3f  cents  if  he 
signs  a  bill  of  lading  and  manifest  to  have  it  shipped  out  of  the 
country.  I  say  that  is  our  viewpoint,  and  I  say  we  want  to  take 
into  consideration  the  price  at  which  it  is  exported.  The  mere 
fact  that  it  is  exported  and  brought  back  into  this  country  and  sold 
at  the  same  rate  shows  that  they  must  export  it  at  a  price  far  below 
the  price  they  ask  the  American  manufacturers.  That  is  one  of  the 
things  that  hurts. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  large  is  the  American  output  of  Paris  green  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  should  say  from  five  to  seven  million  pounds. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 22 


338  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETO. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  that  in  dollars  and  cents,  about  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  a  little  hazy  on  mathematics.  The  price  is  13 
cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  million  pounds  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  About  6,000,000  pounds,  average,  and  that  would  be 
about  $800,000,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  $800,000  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  know  how  much  we  imported  last  year  into 
this  country  from  abroad  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Very  little. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  About  $4,000  worth. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  you  are  scared  to  death  of  this  little  $4,000 
worth  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  scared  to  death  of  it;  yes,  sir.  I  will  tell  you 
why. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  did  we  export  last  year  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  do  not  believe  we  exported  any. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  we  not  export  a  great  deal  more  than  we  im- 
ported ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes;  to  the  southern  countries,  to  Cuba  and  the  West 
Indies;  but  none  to  Europe,  that  I  have  been  able  to  trace.  I  do  not 
know;  I  am  simply  telling  you  of  my  own  experience. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yet  when  you  exported  into  the  southern  countries, 
you  exported  in  competition  with  Canada  and  Germany,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  did  not  sell  it  to  those  people  any  cheaper  than 
you  sold  it  to  your  own  people  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Not  a  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  you  looked  into  the  labor  cost  in  Canada  and 
America?  Have  you  looked  into  the  labor  cost  around  about 
Toronto  ? 

Mr.  SOMEES.  I  have  never  investigated  it  personally,  and  I  am  not 
prepared  to  make  any  statement  with  reference  to  the  difference  in 
labor.  I  understand  that  when  the  reciprocity  act  was  under  con- 
sideration that  matter  was  investigated  by  Congress,  and  you  prob- 
ably have  definite  information  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  you  will  investigate  the  subject  you  will  find  out 
that  labor  is  just  about  as  high,  and  in  many  places  higher,  in  the 
United  States  than  in  Canada.  I  am  afraid  that  they  are  fooling  you 
folks  on  this  labor  proposition. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  They  are  not  fooling  us. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  have  scared  you,  rather. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  have  in  mind  a  statement  made  by  the  Sherwin- 
Williams  Co.,  who  manufacture  in  Cleveland  and  Toronto.  They 
figured  out  that  the  difference  in  cost  of  labor  was  approximately  12 
to  15  per  cent.  I  think  that  is  a  matter  of  record  before  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee.  The  statement  was  prepared  by  one  of  their 
representatives.  1  am  not  sure  who. 

But  we  do  insist  that  it  is  a  serious  matter,  though  it  may  not  ap- 
pear so  to  you  gentlemen.  Ten  per  cent  seems  like  a  very  small  mat- 


SCHEDULE  A. 
PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

ter  for  this  association  to  come  here  and  ask  for,  but  I  want  to  say 
that  it  represents  to-day  our  profits 

Mr.  LONGWORHTH  (interrupting).  You  surely  do  not  want  your 
profits  protected  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No;  but  we  do  not  want  to  be  forced  to  do  business 
for  nothing,  Mr.  Longworth. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  Then  you  are  not  a  real  Democrat. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  You  do  not  know  how  good  a  Democrat  I  am. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  a  man  that  comes  before  this  committee 
and  says  that  he  hates  to  use  the  word  "protection,"  but  that  he  likes 
the  f  eeling  of  it  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No,  sir.  I  challenge  anybody  to  assert  that  I  have 
appeared  here  in  the  attitude  of  a  protectionist.  I  am  simply  asking 
for  an  equitable  adjustment  of  this  tariff.  That  is  all  I  am  asking  for. 
I  am  asking  for  no  favors;  we  do  not  want  any  favors;  we  do  not  nave 
any  need  for  special  favors.  Put  us  on  a  competitive  basis  and  we  will 
battle  with  the  world. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  It  is  better  than  a  competitive  basis  now,  because 
you  only  have  imports  of  $4,000  to  contend  with. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  We  will  have  a  great  deal  more  if  you  put  Paris  green 
on  the  free  list,  because  the  American  manufacturer  will  abstain  from 
going  as  extensively  into  the  manufacture  of  Paris  green  as  he  does 
to-day.  He  buys  material  in  the  summer  tune  and  he  begins  the 
manufacture  in  the  spring.  He  manufactures  all  through  the  sum- 
mer and  he  stores  up  his  material  through  the  winter.  He  enjoys  a 
market  for  three  months  on  stuff  that  it  has  taken  him  nine  months 
to  manufacture,  and  his  money  is  tied  up,  and  I  submit  that  he  is 
entitled  to  some  consideration. 

Mr.  HILL.  Right  there  on  that  line:  Are  you  aware  that  the 
authors  of  this  bill  had  in  mind  only  raising  revenue  from  these 
schedules  while  holding  in  view  the  interests  of  the  consumers  ?  They 
have  not  considered  you  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  am  trying  to  pomt  out  to  them  where  the  con- 
sumers' interests  should  be  considered,  even  more  deeply  than  it  is 
by  this  bill.  I  am  coming  to  that  now. 

Mr.  HILL.  Would  you  be  satisfied  to  have  the  rates  made  on  the 
basis  of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  here  and  abroad  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Putting  you  on  an  equal  basis  of  competition  with  your 
foreign  competitors  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  not  we  the  largest  producers  of  paints  in  your  line 
in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  we  not  shipping  abroad  far  more  than  we  are 
importing  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  That  point  I  can  not  answer.  I  ani  not  in  the  paint, 
business. 

Mr.  HILL.  No;  but  in  dry  colors? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  No;  we  are  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  But  we  are  the  largest  producers  of  paint  and  pigments 
in  the  world.  We  produce  50  per  cent  more  than  Great  Britain, 
which  is  the  next  largest;  we  are  shipping  them  all  over  the  world. 


340  TAEIFP  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Now,  would  you  not  be  satisfied  if  this  committee  fairly  investigates 
tie  question,  or  if  a  nonpartisan  tariff  board  thoroughly  investigates 
the  question,  as  to  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  here  and 
abroad  ?  Would  you  not  accept  that  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  HILL.  Without  knowing  what  the  results  of  their  conclusions 
would  be  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Absolutely;  but  I  can  not  live  on  that.  I  have  got 
to  get  out  of  the  business 

Mr,  HILL.  You  have  got  to  get  out  of  business  because  you  say 
that  this  bill  does  not  consider  your  interests  at  all  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Again  I  repeat  that  they  do.  My  interests  are  going 
to  be  considered — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Gentlemen,  there  are  other  witnesses 
here,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you  return  to  the  real  subject  before 
the  committee.  This  political  discussion  can  come  up  at  a  later 
date. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Let  us  presume  that  you  put  Paris  green  on  the  free 
list.  I  want  to  be  serious  on  this.  The  manufacturers  hesitate  to 
manufacture  a  year  in  advance.  If  they  do  not  prepare  themselves 
to  meet  the  demand — there  may  be  a  demand  and  there  may  not 
be  a  demand.  We  can  not  tell  when  the  bugs  are  going  to  appear. 
If  the  bugs  do  not  come  and  the  crops  are  all  right,  we  sit  there  with 
Paris  green  in  our  hands.  If  the  bugs  do  come,  it  is  a  question  of 
having  sufficient  Paris  green  to  supply  the  needs  of  the  farmers. 

Last  year,  when  I  was  up  before  the  Finance  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  Senator  Williams  protested  against  the  statement  I  made. 
I  said  that  the  manufacturer  was  getting  approximately  15  cents  a 
pound  for  his  Paris  green  from  year  to  year.  He  said,  "I  have  paid 
75  cents  a  pound."  I  told  them  that  I  wanted  that  committee — and 
I  want  this  committee — to  understand  who  gets  the  profit;  how  much 
the  farmer  is  going  to  be  benefited  if  you  put  Paris  green  on  the  free 
list.  He  is  not  going  to  be  benefited  one  single  iota,  because  the 
fellow  who  has  the  Paris  green  that  the  farmer  needs  is  going  to  get 
all  the  money  ho  can  get  out  of  the  farmer.  If  he  does  not  get  it,  he 
is  going  to  carry  it  over,  and  it  isn't  worth  house  room,  because  we  do 
not  want  that  kind  of  poison  lying  around.  If  there  is  a  demand  for 
it  and  the  farmer  must  have  it,  he'  will  get  a  dollar  a  pound  for  it.  I 
have  shipped  a  carload  of  Paris  green  from  New  York  to  Texas  by 
express,  because  they  had  to  have  it.  We  paid  enormous  express 
rates  on  a  carload — 30,000  pounds  of  Paris  green — to  get  it  down 
there  to  meet  an  extreme  situation.  If  Senator  Williams  had  to  pay 
75  cents  for  a  pound  of  Paris  green,  I  wish  I  were  a  dealer  rather  than 
a  manufacturer.  We  are  getting  approximately  13  cents  a  pound  for 
it,  and  it  costs  us  about  \'2  cents  a  pound,  I  think,  at  the  present  time 
to  make  it.  We  are  making  about  a  cent  a  pound  profit.  It  costs 
more  than  12  cents  a  pound  if  I  have  to  go  into  the  market  now  and 
buy  my  materials  at  the  present  market  price  and  sell  it  at  13^  cents 
a  pound — \"2l  cents  a  pound,  which  is  the  price  it  is  being  sold  for,  to 
be  exact  about  the  matter.  It  will  have  to  go  very  much  above  13 
cents  Then-  is  too  close  competition.  We  are  satisfied  with  a  small 
ju-oiit,  but  it  you  wipo  it  out  we  are  not  going  to  take  any  chances. 


SCHEDULE  A.  341 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

What  would  be  the  result  if  we  had  no  Paris  green  here  ?  You  can 
readily  see  what  would  become  of  the  crops.  We  think  we  are  bene- 
factors in  a  sense.  We  think  we  help  the  development  of  agriculture 
in  this  country. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  general  opinion  is  that  you  are  robber  barons. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  would  like  to  know  why,  Mr.  Hill.  Will  somebody 
please  let  me  know  why?  There  is  no  combination.  There  is  not 
even  a  gentleman's  agreement.  There  is  no  connection  between  us; 
no  connection  one  with  the  other;  absolutely  nothing.  It  is  an  open 
business,  with  the  keenest  kind  of  competition  that  you  can  conceive 
of.  I  am  representing  other  people  here,  but  they  will  tell  me  no 
more  about  their  business  than  they  will  tell  Beelzebub.  They  say 
to  come  down  and  make  a  protest,  and  I  do  it  in  their  behalf,  because 
it  is  my  bread  and  butter,  as  it  is  theirs.  I  am  only  fighting  for  a 
situation  that  will  enable  us  to  do  business  as  we  have  been  doing  it. 
We  do  not  ask  that  you  give  us  15  per  cent,  as  at  present,  but  that 
you  give  us  at  least  as  much  as  Canada  gives  her  manufacturers. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  there  been  any  large  quantities  of  it  sold  at  50 
or  75  cents  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  know  of  large  quantities  sold  at  40  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  same  article  that  you  sell  at  13  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  If  we  take  this  tariff  off  and  that  profit  of  yours  should 
go  glimmering,  if  you  sell  your  goods  at  eleven  and  a  hah*  cents  a 
pound  can  the  farmer  save  anything?  If  it  goes  through  the  mid- 
dleman they  would  save  one  and  a  half  cents  a  pound,  perhaps,  or 
on  a  hundred  pounds  a  dollar  and  half  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Or  less. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  that  would  amply  compensate  him — I  want  you 
to  understand  this  theory — that  would  amply  compensate  him  for 
taking  the  tariff  duty  off  on  all  his  products,  to  the  ultimate  benefit 
of  the  consumer  in  your  line.  That  is  the  theory,  and  you  ought  to 
square  off  your  Democratic  politics  with  the  theory  of  this  com- 
mittee and  the  prevailing  theory  of  the  Democratic  Party. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  have  not  altogether  agreed  with  that  theory.  I 
appreciate  it.  I  have  listened  to-day  very  carefully,  and  I  appre- 
ciate it,  but  at  the  same  time  it  does  not  meet  the  situation  that  I 
am  trying  to  describe.  We  are  in  this  position:  You  are  going  to 
take  Paris  green  off  of  the  dutiable  list  and  put  it  on  the  free  list. 
You  are  going  to  open  the  doors  to  the  Canadians  who  are  protected 
from  any  other  countries.  We  could  not  go  there.  They  have 
closed  their  doors  against  us.  You  open  the  doors  to  them  here  and 
make  it  impossible  for  us  to  do  business  under  legitimate  conditions. 
You  are  going  to  create  a  situation  that  will  put  the  farmer  in  the 
hands  of  the  foreigner,  who  may  or  may  not  buy  Paris  green,  as  he 
pleases.  That  is  the  situation. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Where  do  the  Canadians  get  the  materials  from  which 
they  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  think  in  Canada. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Where  do  they  get  blue  vitriol  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  They  get  it  from  the  Northwest  and  export  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  they  not  have  to  send  to  the  United  States  to  get 
their  materials  ? 


342  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  They  buy  it  cheaper  than  we  can.  They  pay  no  duty 
on  it  there.  They  buy  it  at  a  price  less  than  ours. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  this  not  heresy,  to  say  that  one  manufacturer  sells 
cheaper  aboad  than  at  home  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  heresy  or  not.  If  it  is,  I 
don't  care.  I  am  willing  to  stand  on  my  position,  however  I  may  be 
regarded. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  Canada  did  not  have  this  10  per  cent  tariff  against 
Paris  green,  you  could  ship  to  Canada  and  sell  there  ? 

Mr.  SOMERS.  Yes,  sir;  we  could  go  into  Canada  and  give  them  a  run 
for  the  trade,  particularly  if  they  had  free  access  to  our  markets.  We 
will  be  satisfied  to  have  them  come  to  meet  us  on  the  same  basis.  All 
we  want  is  to  meet  {hem  on  the  same  platform.  I  do  not  believe  that 
you  ought  to  build  a  higher  platform  for  one  and  a  lower  platform  for 
the  other.  We  want  an  equal  chance.  This  is  a  serious  matter,  and 
I  do  not  know  anything  in  the  whole  business  that  we  are  more  con- 
cerned with  than  we  are  with  the  duty  on  Paris  green. 

We  submit,  in  conclusion,  that  you  ought  to  at  least  give  us  the 
same  consideration  that  Canada  gives  to  her  manufacturers,  and  that 
is  at  least  10  per  cent  on  Paris  green. 

I  want  to  thank  the  committee  for  indulging  me  and  allowing  me 
to  take  up  so  much  time. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  only  thing  that  surprises  me  is  that  you  did  not 
appear  here  four  years  ago  and  argue  as  to  the  fact  that  as  we  were 
putting  15  per  cent  on  Paris  green  that  we  ought  to  put  15  per  cent 
on  all  colors,  because  you  seem  to  make  that  same  argument  in  regard 
to  coal-tar  dyes. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  I  appeared  before  the  committee  four  years  ago. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  you  did  not  make  any  such  suggestion  as  that. 

Mr.  SOMERS.  If  you  will  remember,  Mr.  Payne,  I  was  one  of  the 
first  witnesses  called  on — the  first.  I  suggested  that  I  did  not  know 
what  was  in  the  minds  of  the  committee,  and  you  very  frankly  said 
that  you  were  in  the  same  attitude,  that  the  committee  scarcely  knew 
what  they  expected  to  do  with  the  tariff.  I  had  nothing  upon  which 
to  base  my  argument,  as  I  have  here.  I  argued  generally  before  the 
committee  before.  I  have  before  me  now  House  bill  No.  20182,  and 
I  had  an  idea  of  the  points  in  the  minds  of  the  majority  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  that  is  why  I  addressed  myself  specifically  to  those  items. 

1  thank  you  very  much. 

The  brief  above  referred  to  by  Mr.  Somers  is  as  follows: 

COMMITTEE  ox  WAYS  AND  MKANS, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  Assuming  that  your  committee  is  considering  changes  in  the  tariff 
along  the  lines  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182,  we  beg  to  present  herewith  a  few  important 
facts  showing  why  the  changes  suggested  in  certain  paragraphs  would  discriminate 
against  the  color  manufacturers  of  the  United  States. 

Section  56  of  the  present  tariff  imposes  a  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  all  paints, 
•olors,  pigments,  etc.,  n.  o.  s.  Paragraph  68  of  H.  R.  20182  reduces  the  duty  from 
30  per  cent  to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  colors  included  in  section  56  for  the  most 
part  contain  considerable  quantities  of  coal-tar  dyes,  at  present  dutiable  in  paragraph  15 
of  the  law  of  l!'u;t  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Paragraph  21  of  H.  R.  20182  proposes  a 
reduction  of  5  por  cent,  making  the  duty  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

There  is  also  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  colors  above  referred  to  considerable 
quantities  of  alizarin,  p_aranitraniline,  and  alpha  aaphthylaruine,  all  of  which  are  at 
present  free  of  duty.  Under  paragraph  fi  of  H.  R.  20182 'it  is  proposed  to  put  a  10  per 


SCHEDULE  A.  343 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  alizarin,  and  under  paragraph  24  of  H.  R.  20182  it  is  proposed 
to  put  a  10  per  cent  duty  on  paranitraniline,  alpha  naphthylamine,  and  other  similar 
anilines,  many  of  which  are  used  in  the  manufacture  01  dry  colors,  but  \\hich  are  now 
on  the  free  list.  The  situation  presented  to  us  is  that  it  is  proposed  to  reduce  the  duty 
on  poods  we  manufacture  in  competition  with  Europe  from  30  per  cent  to  20  per  cent, 
while  imposing  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  on  many  of  the  anilines  that  we  use  in  the  manu- 
facture of  these  colors,  and  which  are  now  free;  also  by  reducing  the  duty  on  other 
coal-tar  dyes  from  30  per  cent  to  25  per  cent  only. 

This  is  a  clear  discrimination  against  the  manufacturer  of  dry  colors  in  the  United 
States.  If  it  is  desired  to  reduce  the  duty  on  dry  colors  from  30  per  cent  to  20  per 
cent  the  duty  on  coal-tar  dyes  should  be  reduced  from  30  per  cent  to  20  per  cent,  and 
alizarin,  paranitraniline,  and  alpha  naphthylamine  should  remain  free  of  duty,  inas- 
much as  they  are  not  manufactured  in  this  country,  and  must  be  imported  from 
abroad .  This  seems  to  us  a  conclusive  argument. 

VERMILION   RED   CONTAINING   QUICKSILVER. 

Under  the  law  of  1909  paragraph  52  imposes  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  on 
this  material.  In  H.  R.  20182,  paragraph  64,  it  is  proposed  to  reduce  this  duty  to 
15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  or  not  less  than  7$  cents  per  pound.  We  ask  that  when  con- 
sidering this  reduction  the  duty  on  quicksilver  be  taken  into  account,  as  unless  the 
duty  is  reduced  on  quicksilver  in  proportion  to  the  reduction  made  in  the  duty  on 
vermilion  red  containing  quicksilver,  we  will  be  entirely  excluded  from  our  home 
market. 

We  pointed  out  in  a  former  brief,  submitted  to  the  Committee  on  Finance  of  the 
United  States  Senate  on  March  19,  1912,  that  during  the  year  1911  about  90,000 
pounds  of  vermilion  red,  carrying  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound,  were  imported. 
This  is  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  total  amount  consumed  in  the  United  States, 
and  any  further  reduction  in  the  duty  that  did  not  carry  with  it  a  corresponding 
reduction  in  the  metal  from  which  the  vermilion  is  made  would  simply  turn  the 
business  entirely  over  into  the  hands  of  the  foreigners.  We  submit  this  for  your 
earnest  consideration. 

PARIS   GREEN. 

Under  paragraph  57  of  the  law  of  1909,  Paris  green  is  dutiable  at  15  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  H.  R.  20182  proposes  to  put  the  article  on  the  free  list.  We  pointed  out 
in  a  brief  submitted  to  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  in  March,  1912,  that  there  was 
the  keenest  competition  among  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  on  this  article. 
We  also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  were  discriminated  against  by  Canada, 
who  imposed  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  on  American  Paris  green,  thus  keeping  us  out  of 
that  market.  If  you  put  Paris  green  on  the  free  list,  you  will  invite  the  Canadian 
manufacturer  to  sell  his  goods  in  this  country  at  a  price  lower  than  that  at  which  the 
American  manufacturer  can  compete,  and  his  Government  protects  him  in  the  exclusive 
enjoyment  of  the  home  trade. 

This  does  not  seem  a  reasonable  attitude  for  your  committee  to  take  toward  the 
manufacturers  in  this  country.  In  the  discussion  before  the  Senate  Finance  Commit- 
tee in  March,  1912,  it  developed  that  there  was  a  feeling  that  the  manufacturers  were 
asking  an  exorbitant  price  from  the  farmers  for  Paris  green.  The  fact  is  that  Paris 
green  has  been  selling  for  approximately  13  to  15  cents  per  pound  for  several  years. 
We  know  that  in  some  cases  retailers  have  charged  30  cents  and  as  high  as  50  cents  per 
pound  for  Paris  green  to  farmers  when  they  needed  it,  but  the  manufacturers  never 
got  above  15  cents,  so  if  an  exorbitant  price  has  been  exacted  from  the  consumer,  it 
has  been  exacted  by  the  small  dealer,  and  not  by  the  manufacturer:  and  if  the  removal 
of  the  10  per  cent  duty  now  on  Paris  green  would  flood  the  market  with  imported  green, 
it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  dealer  would  ask  just  as  high  a  profit  at  a  time  when  the 
farmer  actually  needed  the  green,  and,  consequently,  the  latter  would  enjoy  no  benefit 
of  this  apparent  reduction  in  the  first  cost.  Fifteen  per  cent  is  approximately  our 
profit.  If  you  take  it  away,  you  wipe  out  our  business.  We  believe  that  we  are 
entitled  to  at  least  as  much  consideration  as  is  the  Canadian  manufacturer,  and  that 
at  least  a  10  per  cent  duty  should  be  maintained. 

The  raw  materials  used  in  manufacturing  Paris  green  are  blue  vitriol,  arsenic, 
soda  ash,  and  acetic  acid.  It  is  out  of  the  question  to  think  of  importing  acetic  acid, 
because  of  the  large  content  of  water,  so  that  putting  it  on  the  free  list  means  noth- 
ing. Soda  ash,  which  costs  about  five-eighths  cent  per  pound,  is  made  dutiable 
under  paragraph  21  of  H.  R.  20182  at  one-eighth  cent  per  pound.  Arsenic  is  free  and 
blue  vitriol  is  also  made  free.  The  latter  article  is  largely  exported,  and  the  only 


344  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLOBS,  ETC. 

importations  that  we  have  been  able  to  trace  in  recent  year*- have  been  importations 
of  American-made  blue  vitriol  sent  abroad  and  shipped  back  to  this  country,  so  that 
while  it  appears  that  the  material  costs  us  no  more  than  it  costs  the  foreigner,  it  is  a 
fact  that  the  difference  in  labor  is  more  than  the  10  per  cent  asked  for  by  the  manu- 
facturers. This  is  something  that  we  do  not  care  to  discuss  exhaustively,  as  you  have 
information  on  the  subject  that  is  perhaps  more  conclusive  than  any  we  could  bring 
to  you.  We  ask,  therefore,  for  at  least  10  per  cent  on  Paris  green. 

Permit  us  to  respectfully  ask  whether  it  be  a  good  policy  to  produce  such  a  condition 
that  the  farmers  must  wait  upon  the  pleasure  of  English  and  German  manufacturers 
for  7,000,000  pounds  of  their  most  important  insecticide?  When  the  "bugs"  begin 
to  appear  the  farmer  sends  out  urgent  appeals  for  quick  deliveries  of  Paris  green.  We 
buy  our  chemicals  in  the  autumn,  make  our  green  in  the  winter  and  wait  until  early 
summer  to  sell  it.  Sometimes,  the  "bugs"  don't  appear  to  any  extent  and  we  have 
to  carry  over  a  large  stock  of  green  to  the  next  season. 

If  the  farmer  has  to  rely  upon  foreign  green,  a  shortage  of  it  would  often  send  prices 
up  to  fabulous  figures. 

The  demand  for  green  from  the  farmers  depends  entirely  on  the  number  of  "bugs" 
which  appear  during  the  season.  This  makes  the  manufacture  of  green  a  speculative 
business  and  even  under  present  conditions,  we  makers  are  apathetic  in  regard  to 
producing  it. 

Again,  elaborate  Federal  and  State  laws  exist  to-day  as  to  the  proper  method  of 
making  the  green;  the  preventing  of  its  being  in  any  way  adulterates;  the  restricting 
of  the  amount  of  soluble  arsenic  which  it  may  contain;  the  way  in  which  this  poison 
may  be  distributed;  the  kind  of  package  it  shall  be  put  in,  with  its  net  weight  of 
contents.  The  law  makes  us  state  on  every  label  that  the  amount  of  arsenious  oxide 
combined  with  copper  is  not  less  than  50  per  cent.  We  have  to  pay  for  a  license  in 
most  States  before  we  can  offer  these  goods  for  sale.  The  retailer  in  these  States  can 
be  arrested  and  fined  if  the  green  he  sells  does  not  conform  to  all  the  laws  of  his  State. 
The  law  on  these  subjects  varies  in  the  various  States.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  steamer 
brings  in  50  tons  of  green  and  it  is  found  that  it  doesn't  exactly  conform  in  composi- 
tion to  the  Federal  laws  and  also  that  the  farmers  are  crying  for  green.  Would  the 
Government  reject  this  lot  and  let  the  "bugs"  eat  up  the  crops,  or  would  they  let  the 
farmer  have  any  kind  of  green  that  Europe  might  please  to  send  us?  Then  would 
the  various  States  permit  the  sale  of  a  green  that  did  not  comply  with  their  State 
laws? 

BLUES. 

Blues,  such  as  Berlin,  Prussian,  Chinese,  etc.,  are  now  dutiable  under  paragraph  43 
of  the  law  of  1909  at  8  cents  per  pound.  H.  R.  20182  proposes,  in  paragraph  57,  to 
make  the  duty  20  per  cent,  or  not  less  than  3  cents  per  pound,  or  a  reduction  of  about 
62  per  cent  in  the  duty.  The  Ways  and  Means  Committee  report  No.  325  sho.rs  that 
190,000  pounds  of  these  blues  were  imported  in  1911,  having  an  average  value  of 
18T%  cents  per  pound.  The  proposed  duty  of  20  per  cent  would  therefore  be  3f  cents 
per  pound.  This  brings  the  duty  paid  cost  to  22  cents  per  pound,  which  is  below  the 
cost  of  making  these  blues  in  this  country.  The  chief  ingredient  of  these  blues  is 
prussiate  of  potash,  now  dutiable  at  4  cents  per  pound,  which  it  is  proposed  to  reduce 
to  1J  cents.  This  is  an  apparent  reduction  in  our  favor  of  2f  cents  per  pound.  But  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  takes  120  pounds  of  prussiate  of  potash  to  make  100 
pounds  of  Prussian  blue.  On  this  basis,  the  reduction  amounts  to  only  2J  cents  per 
pound. 

There  is  only  a  very  small  amount  of  pruspiate  made  in  this  country,  approximately 
75  per  cent  of  it  being  imported  from  Europe.  The  normal  average  price  which  we 
have  paid  for  prussiate  for  the  past  few  years  has  been  about  13  cents  per  pound.  The 
powerful  chemical  trust  in  Europe  has  now  advanced  the  price  to  16 \  cents  per  pound, 
and  we  are  wholly  at  their  mercy.  There  are  but  few  agencies  in  this  country  from 
whom  we  can  buy  the  foreign-made  prussiate,  and  when  we  make  a  contract  we  do 
not  know  whether  we  are  to  receive  German,  Belgian,  or  English  prussiate.  On  account 
of  foreign  competition,  even  at  the  duty  of  4  cents  per  pound,  the  largest  manufacturer 
in  this  country  has  been  forced  recently  to  go  out  of  business.  A  reduction  in  the 
duty  on  blue  means  an  increased  importation,  with  a  very  much  reduced  revenue  to 
the  Government,  whereas  it  is  clear  to  us  that  the  present  importation  of  blue,  paying 
a  duty  of  8  cents  per  pound,  nets  the  Government  a  much  higher  revenue  than  would 
possibly  be  expected  under  the  proposed  order  of  things.  At  the  same  time  it  does 
not  give  the  American  manufacturer  control  of  the  home  market  but  keeps  him  in 
sharp  competition  with  his  competitors  abroad. 


SCHEDULE  A.  345 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

We  therefore  ask  for  such  consideration  as  an  American  manufacturer  is  entitled  to. 
We  do  not  ask  for  protection,  nor  for  a  tariff  that  will  prohibit  competition.  We 
invite  competition,  but  would  ask  to  be  permitted  to  enjoy  a  share  of  the  trade  on  the 
same  platform  with  outsiders. 

We  do  not  believe  that  we  are  getting  this  consideration  under  H.  R.  20182,  but,  on 
'  the  contrary,  are  being  seriously  discriminated  against.  We  do  not  oppose  the  reduc- 
tion in  other  colors  that  we  manufacture,  because  corresponding  reductions  seem  to 
have  been  made  in  the  pigments  used  in  their  manufacture,  but  in  the  particular  cases 
that  we  have  pointed  out  it  seems  to  us  that  the  committee  has  not  been  fully  informed 
of  the  effect  of  the  proposed  changes. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  believe  that  the  maximum  revenue  will  be  produced  by  equalizing  the  duty 
between  coal-tar  dyes,  etc.,  and  the  dry  colors  made  from  the  same. 

We  also  believe,  with  respect  to  Paris  green,  that  placing  the  article  on  the  free  list 
will  wipe  out  whatever  revenue  the  Government  now  enjoys,  and  there  is  Paris  green 
imported  even  at  the  present  duty  of  15  per  cent. 

With  respect  to  Berlin,  Chinese,  and  Prussian  blue  we  believe  that  the  duty  on  these 
articles  should  not  be  lower  than  8  cents  per  pound,  if  the  revenue-producing  principle 
is  to  be  maintained. 

The  principle  of  tariff  reduction  is  not  lost  by  the  adoption  of  our  suggestion,  as  there 
are  many  reductions  in  other  items  that  we  manufacture  against  which  we  make  no 
protest,  because  of  the  reasons  pointed  out. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

ARTHUR  S.  SOMERS, 
Representing  Dry  Color  Manufacturers. 

JANUARY  6,  1913. 

BRIEF    OF    THE    ROESSLER    &    HASSLACHER    CHEMICAL    CO., 
ON  CERAMIC  COLORS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  S,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  petition  that  the  present  rate  of  duty  on 
ceramic  colors,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem,  be  retained  and  remain 
unchanged. 

For  the  reason  that  these  colors  are  metallic  and  vitrifiable  prepa- 
rations and  substances,  in  powder  and  liquid  form,  composed  of  metal 
oxides  with  fluxes,  to  assist  their  melting. 

The  ceramic  colors  are  also  used  by  amateur  artists  for  china  and 
glass  painting,  and  put  up  in  vials  and  tubes  separately  or  mixed 
with  oil.  The  rich  color  elfects  being  principally  obtained  by  the  use 
of  precious  metals,  which  limit  their  consumption  to  beautifying 
china  and  glassware,  etc.,  making  them  more  a  luxury  than  a  neces- 
sity of  life. 

CLASSIFICATION  UNDER  PAYNE- ALDRICH  TARIFF  ACT,  1909. 
SCHEDULE  A. — Chemicals,  oils,  and  paints. 

Paragraph  56  :  Ceramic  colors  proper,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Imports,  1910-11,  S16,334;  1911-12,  $12,323.  Artists'  paints  or 
colors  (in  bottles,  packages,  tubes,  pans,  cakes,  etc.),  30  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  Imports,  1910-11,  880,130;  1911-12,  $106,940  (75  per 
cent  ceramic  colors  and  25  per  cent  water-color  paints). 


346  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

SCHEDULE  B. — Earth,  earthenware,  and  glassware. 

Paragraph  110  :  Fusible  enamels,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Im- 
ports, 1910-11,  $15,511;  1911-12,  $14,604. 

FREE    LIST. 

Paragraph  576 :  Glass  enamel  white  for  watch  and  clock  dials,  duty 
free.  Imports,  1910-11,  $21,702;  1911-12,  $17,981. 

White  glass  enamel,  known  as  a  color  rather  than  an  enamel,  and  a  material  for 
making  color,  rather  than  an  enamel  itself,  heretofore  duty  free,  according  to  recent 
decisions  of  the  United  States  Court  of  Customs  Appeals,  Treasury  Decision  32983, 
November  21,  1912,  is  now  dutiable  as  ceramic  colors  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

SCHEDULE  M. — Pulp,  papers,  and  books. 

Paragraph  412 :  Decalcomanias  in  ceramic  colors,  weighing  per  1,000 
sheets,  20  by  30  inches,  under  100  pounds,  70  cents  per  pound  and  15 
per  cent;  over  100  pounds,  22  cents  per  pound  and  15  per  cent;  all 
others  (except  toy),  40  cents  per  pound.  Imports,  1910-11,  $176,481 ; 
1911-12,  $171,838. 

Description  of  ceramic  colors. — The  ceramic  colors  are  a  distinct 
article  of  commerce,  comprising  a  great  variety  of  vitrified  prepara- 
tions, commonly  known  as  stains,  color  bodies,  fluxes,  fusible  enamels, 
enamels  (over  and  under  glaze),  glazes,  etc.,  only  suitable  in  coloring 
and  decorating  metal,  porcelain,  glass,  pottery,  and  other  earthen  and 
clay  wares. 

The  ceramic  colors  differ  essentially  from  all  other  kinds  of  pig- 
ments, paints,  colors,  and  dyes  used  for  house  painting  and  in  the 
textile  industries,  since  their  application  to  develop  the  colors, 
bringing  out  the  rich  color  effects  and  fix  the  same  permanently  on 
the  ware,  requires  a  firing  process  at  a  high  temperature  ranging  from 
900  to  3,000°  F. 

(Exhibit  A,  price  list  ceramic  materials  No.  12,  recently  issued.) 

The  manufacturing  and  marketing  of  these  ceramic  colors  is  more 
difficult  than  other  lines  of  trade,  since  with  the  change  of  fashions  in 
shades  and  colors,  the  matching  of  shades  requires  a  well-trained  and 
competent  staff  for  research  work,  meaning  considerable  expense  in 
time  and  money.  Their  manufacture  necessitates  experiments  with 
costly  raw  materials  before  the  desired  shade  effects  are  obtained. 
Large  stocks  of  both  raw  materials  and  finished  products  are  con- 
stantly kept  on  hand,  which  with  the  change  of  fashions  do  not  find  a 
ready  sale. 

Tariff. — This  industry,  although  established  by  us  in  this  country 
nearly  30  years  ago,  has  made  only  slow  progress,  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  customs  duty  has  at  no  time  been  adequate  to  equalize  the 
advantage  which  centuries  of  experience  give  to  the  products  manu- 
factured in  England,  Franco,  Germany,  etc. 

The  present  duty  of  30  per  cent  on  ceramic  colors  is  too  low  a  rate 
of  duty  considering  the  duty  carried  by  their  raw  materials,  being 
generally  the  same  and  in  some  instances  considerably  higher,  there 


SCHEDULE   A. 


347 


PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLOBS,  ETC. 

being  no  counterbalance  for  the  higher  cost  of  skilled  labor,  apparatus, 
machinery,  materials,  and  supplies  in  general. 

In  all  previous  tariffs  ceramic  colors  have  been  dutiable  at  30  per 
cent  ad  valorem.  Under  the  Dingley  Tariff  Act,  1897,  litigation  arose 
on  account  of  some  of  the  ceramic  colors  containing  chrome,  lead, 
and  zinc,  to  have  the  same  classified  under  the  low  paint  and  color 
schedule  at  a  few  cents  per  pound,  not  at  all  consistent  with  their 
value,  when  some  of  the  more  expensive  colors,  like  maroons,  purples, 
rubies,  etc.,  the  basis  of  which  are  the  precious  metals,  are  worth  up 
to  $20  per  pound. 

A  manifest  error  of  the  Dingley  Act  was  recognized  and  rectified  in 
the  Pavne- Aid  rich  Act  of  1909  by  specifying  that  the  ceramic  colors 
be  made  dutiable  at  the  proper  rate  by  making  special  provision  for 
ceramic  colors  according  to  the  enactment  of  the  following  paragraph: 

"All  glazes,  fluxes,  enamels,  and  colors  used  only  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  ceramic,  enameled,  and  glass  articles,  thirty  per  centum  ad 
valorem." 

The  white  glass  enamel,  for  watch  and  clock  dials,  duty  free,  having 
been  held  to  be  untenable,  and  fusible  enamels  enumerated  under  the 
glass  schedule,  continued  from  previous  tariffs,  dutiable  at  25  per 
cent  ad  valorem  on  scientific  principles,  as  both  these  materials  contain 
metallic  oxides,  should  in  fact  be  listed  as  ceramic  colors  and  be 
dutiable  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Approximate  duty  revenue  (average  2  years'  imports). 
[Payne-Aldrich  Tariff  Act,  1909.] 


Ceramic  colors. 

Values. 

Duty  rates. 

Ceramic  colors  proper  

$14,329.00 

30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Artist's  paints  *or  colors  (75  per  cent  eers>tiiic  colors)  

70,  152.  00 

Do. 

Fusible  enamel  ...        

15,  058.  00 

25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Glass  enamel,  white....  

19,842.00 

Free,  now  30  per  cent. 

Total  

119,381.00 

Approximate  revenue.  ..           

34,911.40 

Artist's  water-color  paints  (25  per  cent  artist's  paints) 

23,483.00 

30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Approximate  revenue  .                            

6,344.90 

Decalcomanias  in  ceramic  colors,  total  

172,661.25 

Various  rates. 

Approximate  revenue                       . 

67,  418.  00 

Suggested  modification  of  duties. 

Ceramic  colors  proper:  Artist's  ceramic  colors  in  tubes,  etc.;  fusible 
enamels,  glass  enamel  white,  $119,381  (30  per  cent  ad  valorem). 
Approximate  revenue,  $35,814.30. 

Artist's  water-color  paints  (25  per  cent  artist's  paints),  $23,483  (30 
per  cent  ad  valorem).  Approximate  revenue,  $6,344.90. 

Although  the  ceramic  color  item  is  not  very  large,  the  same  offers  a 
good  opportunity  for  revenue,  since  the  ultimate  consumer  is  per- 
fectly willing  to  pay  for  the  luxury  of  beautifully  decorated  china, 
tableware,  and  vases.  From  a  revenue  point  of  view  any  reduction 
in  duty  would  not  be  counterbalanced  by  an  increase  in  the  imports, 
and  as  the  ceramic  colors  are  used  primarily  in  the  fine  arts,  for  deco- 


348  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

rative  purposes,  which  are  a  luxury,  the  question  of  duty  can  there- 
fore be  regarded  more  as  a  revenue-bearing  proposition. 

We  therefore  petition  that  the  present  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad 
valorem  on  ceramic  colors  be  retained. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  ROESSLER  &  HASSLACHER  CHEMICAL  Co., 
Louis  RUHL,  Assistant  Secretary. 

POMEROY  &  FISCHER,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YORK,  December  23 ,.191 2. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Replying  to  yours  of  December  5,  we  present  our  view 
on  the  tariff  rates  for  paints,  colors,  and  varnishes  under  Schedule 
A.  We  have  arranged  the  matter  as  far  as  possible  under  the  head- 
ings suggested  in  your  letter. 

In  general  the  present  average  rate  of  duty  is  32.22  per  cent  (1). 
On  the  other  hand,  this  class  of  goods  is  produced  with  a  minimum 
of  labor,  which  the  United  States  census  places  at  7  per  cent  (2). 
Certainly  a  duty  of  more  than  four  times  the  total  labor  cost  is 
absurd. 

Our  total  exports  are  over  seven  million  and  our  imports  but  two 
million  dollars  (3).  A  study  of  the  Government  report  cited  will 
sho\v  that  our  exports  are  growing  fast,  having  more  than  trebled 
between  1900  and  1910,  whereas  imports  have  increased  but  25 
per  cent  in  the  last  five  years.  In  other  Words,  domestic  makers 
compete  with  ease  in  the  world's  markets  and  are  gradually  forcing 
foreign  goods  out  of  the  home  market.  Our  total  consumption  of 
this  class  is  $200.000  (4).  of  wliich  foreign  goods  comprise  but  2  per 
cent.  Tims  it  is  evident  that  the  present  duties  do  not  simply 
protect,  they  prohibit. 

That  the  American  manufacturers  do  not  desire  such  grossly 
unfair  conditions  is  amply  proven  by  the  reports  of  the  hearings 
before  the  Payne  committee  (5)  as  well  as  by  the  statement  of  ex-Gov. 
Murphy  before  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  early  this  year. 

From  the  volume  of  imports  and  average  rate  of  duty  already 
given  it  is  clear  that  this  great  industry  furnishes  a  revenue  of  less 
than  8700,000.  A  lower  duty  would  produce  more  revenue,  put  a 
wholesome  and  much-needed  restraint  upon  the  price  and  quality 
of  American  goods,  and  yet  deprive  the  domestic  manufacturer  of 
no  legitimate  profit. 

Our  experience  of  25  years  leads  us  to  believe  that  paints,  colors, 
and  varnishes  need  no  duty  as  a  protection,  but  that  an  average 
rate  of  10  per  cent  would  produce  the  greatest  possible  revenue. 
Free  entry  might  possibly  increase  the  present  insignificant  imports 
by  tenfold  and  a  10  per  cent  duty  by  fivefold,  thus  nearly  doubling 
the  present  revenue.  A  reduction  of  the  present  average  rate  of 
2  per  cent  to  25,  20.  or  15  per  cent  would  have  little  effect  on 
imports  or  revenue.  The  10  per  cent  rate  is  needed  to  produce 
any  competition  worthy  the  name. 


SCHEDULE  A.  349 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

Price  control  of  at  least  four  items  in  this  group  is  exercised  by 
trusts,  pools,  agreements,  etc.  We  refer  to  white  lead,  zinc,  Englisn 
or  quicksilver  vermilion,  and  ultramarine  blue.  To  prove  this 
generally  recognized  fact  would  carry  us  far  beyond  the  limits  of 
this  article,  and  we  leave  it  with  the  suggestion  that  your  committee 
most  carefully  investigate  the  matter. 

Packages  and  containers  now  enter  free  when  containing  free  or 
specific  duty  goods,  but  pay  the  same  rate  as  their  contents  when 
holding  ad  valorem  goods.  This  is  so  manifestly  unfair  as  to  need 
no  comment.  Ad  valorem  package  should  be  free  as  well. 

The  trade  data  concerning  a  number  of  articles  of  this  schedule 
furnishes  a  stronger  argument  for  lower  rates  than  the  general 
figures  given.  We  will  now  touch  briefly  on  a  few  items  with  which 
we  are  familiar  from  long  experience. 

WHITE    LEAD. 

White  lead,  dry  or  in  oil,  paragraph  53. 

We  believe  this  article  and  its  associated  products,  red  lead  and 
orange  mineral,  should  enter  free. 

Lead  is  the  most  highly  protected  of  the  industrial  metals  and  its 
derivative. 

White  lead  is  equallv  burdened.  Its  present  duty  of  2\  cents  per 
pound  is  51  per  cent  of  to-day's  London  price  and  averaged  42.44  per 
cent  upon  the  goods  imported  in  1911  (6). 

Our  present  domestic  production  is  132,612  tons  (7),  whereas  our 
imports  are  but  330  tons  (8)  or  O.OOJ  per  cent  as  much.  Records  of 
exports  of  white  lead  have  only  been  kept  since  last  July,  but  they 
indicate  them  to  be  at  the  rate  of  8,500  tons  annually  (9),  or  26  times 
the  imports. 

These  records  do  not  separate  dry  lead  from  that  ground  in  oil,  so 
it  is  impossible  to  compare  the  export  price  with  that  charged  the 
American  consumer.  To  our  minds  there  is  no  doubt,  however,  that 
the  export  rate  is  lower  by  a  considerable  per  cent.  This  belief  is 
supported  by  a  letter  just  received  from  a  correspondent  in  Holland, 
who  says,  "As  for  prices,  we  beg  to  point  out  that  American  white 
lead  in  oil  in  Holland  as  a  rule  is  f.  2.50  to  f.  3  per  cent  kilos  cheaper 
than  the  true  Dutch  white  lead  in  oil." 

The  trade  is  undoubtedly  controlled  by  the  National  Lead  Co., 
which  probably  produces  65  to  70  per  cent  of  the  country's  output. 
This  company  in  turn  is  said  to  be  owned  by  the  American  Smelting 
&  Refining  Co.  interests,  which  again,  we  believe,  controls  the  metallic- 
lead  market.  Recently  the  press  announced  that  this  group  had 
formed  an  international  pool  or  trust,  whose  power  was  immediately 
manifested.  We  had  hardly  learned  of  this  pool  before  we  received 
the  first  of  a  series  of  cables  from  the  English  corroder  we  represent, 
announcing  increases  in  the  price  of  white  lead. 

A  further  and  most  startling  evidence  of  the  great  power  of  this 
company  was  a  statement  made  by  one  of  its  officials  to  the  writer  to 
the  effect  that  they  regularly  export  dry  lead  in  large  quantity  to 
the  English  factory  above  mentioned  and  that  they  similarly  sell 
every  corroder  in  England.  When  our  manufacturers  can  lay  their 


350  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAQBAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLOBS,  ETC. 

product  down  at  the  doors  of  their  foreign  competitor  so  much 
cheaper  than  he  can  make  it  as  to  lead  to  large  and  steady  sales,  is  a 
protection  of  40  to  50  per  cent  needed? 

The  National  Lead  Co.  is  supposed  to  make  about  65  per  cent  of 
our  output,  or  86,198  tons.  Were  this  material  imported,  the  duty 
would  be  $4,309,900.  Thus  we  see  at  a  glance  the  height  of  the  pro- 
tecting wall  erected  by  a  kindly  Congress  to  shield  an  infant  nidus  try. 

Nothing  but  free  entry  will  have  any  effect  upon  this  situation,  as 
is  amply  proven  by  the  fact  that  the  lower  duty  of  1  £  cents  per  pound 
under  the  Wilson  law  only  increased  the  annual  imports  to  814  tons. 

Red  lead  (par.  49)  and  orange  mineral  (par.  48)  are  similar  in 
appearance  and  identical  in  chemical  composition.  They  differ  only 
in  minor  physical  respects,  and  their  identification  is  all  but  impos- 
sible to  any  but  experts.  This  naturally  leads  to  false  classification 
and  much  trouble.  The  two  articles  should  bear  the  same  duty. 

VARNISH. 

Varnish  (par.  51,  duty  oil  varnish,  25  per  cent). 

Pure  oil  varnishes  contain  but  three  major  ingredients — Unseed  oil, 
fossil  gums,  and  turpentine.  The  last  two  enter  free,  and  the  first  is 
produced  here  in  quantities  sufficient  for  our  needs.  As  in  the  case  of 
the  other  articles  mentioned,  our  imports  of  varnish  are  small  and 
declining,  whereas  our  exports  are  large  and  growing  rapidly.  Even 
the  reduction  of  the  duty  from  35  per  cent  to  25  per  cent  under  the 
present  law  has  not  stimulated  imports.  All  these  facts  are  shown 
at  a  glance  from  the  following  figures  (9) : 


1903 

1907  (35 
per  cent). 

1910  (25 
per  cent). 

SI  25  479 

$65  483 

i$57  156 

667  475 

961  291 

»1  050  200 

'Oil.  21911. 

Dom&stic  production,  1905,  823,561,099. 

Surely  a  duty  that  allows  entry  to  but  one-fourth  of  1  per  cent  of 
the  country's  consumption  is  prohibitive,  and  little  revenue  can  be 
expected  from  it.  To  produce  income  the  rate  must  allow  of  com- 
petition. 

The  United  States  census  reports  tell  us  that  the  labor  cost  for  pro- 
ducing varnish  is  but  5.1  per  cent  of  its  value  (10).  This  does  not 
warrant  a  duty  five  times  as  great. 

The  average  declared  values  of  imports  and  exports  must  give 
quite  an  approximate  idea  of  manufacturing  costs.  Judged  by  this 
standard,  foreign  goods  cost  nearly  double  as  much  as  domestic,  the 
figures  being  SI. 92  per  gallon  for  the  former  and  98  cents  for  the 
latter  (11). 

These  figures  are  borne  out  by  our  own  experience,  which  we  will 
illustrate  by  two  cases. 

The  Navy  was  recently  quoted  a  quantity  of  varnish,  under  the 
most  rigid  of  specifications,  for  -?1 .09  per  gallon  (12),  whereas  our  cost 


SCHEDULE   A.  351 

PARAGRAPH  68— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

in  London  for  a  similar  grade  is  $1.82.  Our  cheapest  carriage- 
finishing  varnish  costs  us  over  $2.25  in  London,  whereas  we  have 
absolute  proof  that  at  least  one  of  the  railroads  centering  in  New  York 
buys  for  $2.05. 

That  the  domestic  manufacturers  do  not  feel  the  need  of  a  duty  is 
amply  proven  by  their  testimony  before  your  committee  at  various 
tunes.  Mr.  N.  B.  Arnold,  representing  the  Varnish  Manufacturers' 
National  Association,  said  at  the  hearing  in  1907 :  "All  varnish  in  this 
country  is  a  great  deal  lower  in  price  than  the  foreign  varnish  to-day-" 
and  also,  "We  go  into  the  foreign  countries  and  compete  with  the 
world — the  goods  being  sold  at  a  profit."  Ex-Go v.  Murphy,  of  New 
Jersey,  one  of  our  largest  manufacturers,  said  to  the  Senate  Finance 
Committee  on  March  15  last  that  so  far  as  he  could  speak  for  the 
industry,  as  representing  one  of  the  largest  plants,  he  would  have  no 
objection  to  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  varnishes. 

It  is  thus  quite  clear  that  no  duty  on  varnish  is  needed  unless  it  be 
to  produce  revenue.  Speaking  as  the  oldest  importing  house,  we 
believe  that  a  rate  of  10  per  cent,  with  packages  free,  would  produce 
the  greatest  income.  Such  a  rate  might  possibly  in  crease  imports  by 
tenfold  and  the  present  revenue  by  fourfold.  Even  at  that  imports 
would  be  but  1\  per  cent  of  our  production  and  no  harm  could  come 
to  the  infant  industries. 

READY-MIXED   PAINTS. 

Ready-to-use  paints  constitute  one  of  the  largest  items  of  domestic 
production;  but  they  are  not  specifically  covered  by  the  tariff,  and 
if  imported  would  enter  under  the  " basket  clause,"  paragraph  56, 
at  30  per  cent.  Records  of  imports  are  not  to  be  had;  but  it  is 
generally  known  in  the  trade  that  they  are  nil.  Data  covering 
exports  have  only  been  kept  since  July  last;  but  it  shows  shipments 
at  the  rate  of  over  1,000,000  gallons  per  year  (13). 

It  is  not  pleasant  to  speak  ill  of  any  branch  of  our  industries;  but 
it  is  well  known  that  adulteration  of  paints  is  easily  accomplished 
and  with  difficulty  detected  by  the  consumer.  As  a  result,  the 
practice  has  become  very  general  and  was  first  exposed  in  a  convinc- 
ing way  by  the  agricultural  experiment  station  of  North  Dakota  in 
Bulletins  Nos.  70,^86,  and  others  (1906-1909).  These  reports  showed 
that  many  large  and  well-known  firms  were  putting  into  their  paints 
from  16  to  100  per  cent  of  inert  pigments,  5  to  40  per  cent  of  water, 
and  giving  short  measure  at  that.  These  revelations  resulted  in 
the  enactment  of  much  needed  pure-paint  laws  by  a  number  of 
States,  and  the  situation  is  now  somewhat  improved. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  experience  is  that  foreign  paints  of  all 
classes  are  prepared  much  more  carefully  and  with  greater  regard  for 
the  makers'  future  reputation.  We  therefore  submit  as  a  conclusion 
that  a  rate  of  duty  which  would  permit  of  some  real  competition 
would  be  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  consumer  and  to  the  ultimate 
gain  of  the  domestic  maker. 


352  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  BTO. 
ENAMEL   PAINTS. 

The  rate  of  duty  on  enamel  paints  has  been  in  almost  continuous 
litigation  since  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  Tariff  Act  in  1897.  This 
has  placed  a  great  hardship  on  both  importers  and  consumers  of  this 
article,  and  we  hope  your  committee  will  so  word  your  proposed  bill 
that  no  doubt  can  exist,  either  as  to  the  rate  of  duty  or  as  to  whether 
enamels  made  without  varnish  and  those  made  with  varnish  are  to  be 
assessed  alike  or  differently.  It  is  also  desirable  to  make  it  clear 
whether  or  not  colored  enamels  are  to  carry  the  same  rate  as  white 
enamels  of  their  respective  classes. 

Enamels  made  with  varnish  consist  simply  of  oxide  or  zinc  ground 
in  varnish,  and  it  seems  to  us  that  it  should  carry  the  same  rate  as 
varnish,  its  most  expensive  ingredient. 

Enamel  made  without  varnish,  on  the  other  hand,  is  oxide  of  zinc 
ground  in  a  drying  linseed  oil  and  thinned  with  turpentine.  It  is,  of 
course,  a  cheaper  product,  and  it  would  seem  as  if  it  should  carry  the 
lesser  rate  always  accorded  linseed  oil.  If  an  ad  valorem  rate  is  de- 
sired, we  believe  that  nothing  above  10  per  cent  will  produce  any 
revenue  of  moment. 

At  present  enamels  made  with  varnish  enter  at  35  per  cent  under 
paragraph  51,  and  enamels  made  without  varnish,  imder  the  basket 
clause  Xo.  56,  at  30  per  cent. 

Comparative  records  of  exports  and  imports  are  not  to  be  had  so  far 
as  we  can  find. 

Few  American  enamels  now  sell  at  above  $2.50  per  gallon,  and  the 
Navy  Department  recently  purchased  under  most  rigid  specifications 
for  SI. 52  per  gallon  (14).     On  the  other  hand,  our  own  landed  costs 
run  from  about  S2.50  to  nearly  $4  per  gallon  according  to  quality. 
•  In  closing  we  would  remind  you  that,  though  importers,  we  are  loyal 
American  citizens.     We  desire  no  advantage  over  any  domestic  com- 
petitor, but  simply  a  chance  to  meet  them  on  equal  terms.     Regulated 
competition  is  me  life  of  trade,  and  customs  tariffs,  to  be  productive, 
must  permit  and  not  prohibit  imports. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

POMEROY  &  FISCHER, 
By  CHAS.  B.  GRIMES. 

REFERENCES. 

(1)  Commerce   and   Navigation  of  United    State?,    Department  of  Commerce  and 

I. at  or,  volume  1911,' pages  993  and  994. 

(2)  Census  1910,  Bulletin  Manufactures  of  New  York  State,  pages  84-85: 

Total  value  of  products.  1909 $28,  559,  474 

Total  wages  paid  to  produce 1,  863,  339 

<  'ensus  United  State?,  1905,  volume  "Manufactures." 

(3)  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  19]  1.  pages  29,  841,  59, 

and  473: 

Exports  paints,  pigments,  and  colors,  1911 $6,294,746 

Exports  varnish,  1911 1,074,  264 

7,  369,  010 


2,  045,  548 
57, 156 

2, 102,  704 


SCHEDULE   A.  858 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

(4^  Mineral  Resources  of  United  States,  bulletin  issued  November.  1912. 

(5)  Tariff  hearings  before  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Sixtieth  Congress,  Sched- 

ule A,  pages  413-468. 

(6)  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  1911,  pages  993  and  994. 

(7)  The  Production  of  Mineral  Paint  in  1911,  page  16. 

(8A)  Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and  Finance  for  October,  1912,  page  26. 

(8)  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  1911,  pages  993  and  994. 

(9)  United  States  Census,  1905,  Manufactures,  part  1,  page  ccc. 
United  States  Census,  1905,  Manufactures,  part  1,  page  350. 
United  States  Census,  1905,  Manufactures,  part  1,  page  clxxii. 
Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  1911,  pages  473  and  841. 

(10}  United  States  Census,  1905,  Manufactures,  part  1,  pages  336-337. 

(11)  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  1911,  page  473  foil  varnish). 
Commerce  and  Navigation  of  United  States,  1911,  page  841  (all  varnish). 

(12)  Class  94,  opening  November  14,  1912. 

(13)  Monthly  Summary,  Commerce  and  Finance,  advance  sheets  for  October,  1912, 

page  26. 

(14)  Schedule  4715,  class  36,  opening  of  August  13,  1912. 

BRIEF  OF  J.  W.  COULSTON  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

NEW  YOEK,  January  8, 19 IS. 
Hon.  Mr.  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Paragraph  56  of  tariff  act  of  1909:  Under  this  para- 
graph of  paints,  colors,  and  pigments,  etc.,  a  duty  of  30  per  cent  is 
paid. 

Paragraph  117:  Under  this,  iron  ore  pays  duty  of  15  cents  per  ton. 

Under  Treasury  Summary  29074  (119  Fed.  Rep.,  470,  and  162 
Fed.  Rep.,  880),  oxide  of  iron  in  lump  form  is  permitted  to  enter  the 
United  States  on  duty  as  iron  ore  at  15  cents  per  ton.  Not  a  particle 
of  this  iron  ore  is  used  for  smelting  purposes  but  solely  to  make 
powdered  oxide  of  iron.  On  oxide  of  iron  we  pay  duty  of  30  per 
cent,  or  $6  per  ton,  while  the  importer  of  crude  material  pays  only 
15  cents  per  ton. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  in  some  manner  importations  of  iron  ore, 
used  in  paints,  be  assessed  at  the  same  rate  as  the  powdered  iron  ore. 
V ery  respectfully,  yours, 

J.  W.  CotHLSTON  &  Co. 

BRIEF  OF  THE   PAINT   MANUFACTURERS'   ASSOCIATION   OF 
THE    UNITED    STATES. 

ACME  WHITE  LEAD  AND  COLOR  WORKS, 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  10,  1913. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  DOREMUS:  Referring  to  our  recent  conference  cover- 
ing the  matter  of  proposed  revisions  in  Schedule  A  of  the  tariff  and 
the  effect  that  said  revisions  would  have  upon  pur  industry,  wish  to 
say  that  when  this  matter  was  under  consideration  last  March  a  com- 
mittee, appointed  by  the  Paint  Manufacturers'  Association,  prepared  a 
statement  or  brief  to  be  presented  in  connection  with  a  hearing  before 
the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate.  You  will,  perhaps,  remember 
that  no  opportunity  was  given  for  hearing  on  this  schedule  by  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House.  This  statement,  which 

78959°— VOL  1—13 23 


354  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

was  prepared  with  considerable  care,  is  applicable  in  every  way  to 
conditions  as  they  exist  at  the  present  time.  Hence,  it  occurred  to 
me  that  it  might  be  as  well  to  send  you  a  copy  of  same. 

As  our  conference  was  necessarily  limited  in  time  and  the  proposi- 
tion, as  a  whole,  gone  over  rather  hurriedly,  the  statement  I  am  send- 
ing herewith  will  probably  make  some  matters  more  clear  to  you. 

Trusting  that  we  may  have  your  best  cooperation  in  the  way  of 
bringing  aoout  an  equitable  adjustment  of  the  tariff,  as  it  affects  this 
industry,  along  the  lines  of  our  conversation,  I  beg  to  remain,  with 
kindest  regard!, 

Yours,  most  sincerely, 

WM.  L.  DAVIES,  President. 
Hon.  FRANK  E.  DOREMUS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington.  D.  C. 


GENERAL  STATEMENT  REGARDING  PAINTS  IN  SCHEDULE  A. 

[Paragraph  68,  relating  to  ready  mixed  paints;  paragraph  60,  earth  paints  for  all  painting  purposes; 
paragraph  63,  enamel  paints  made  with  varnish;  paragraph  50,  soya  oil,  china  nut  oil  and  linseed  oil: 
paragraph  37,  varnish  gums.] 

Hon.  BOIES  PENROSE, 

United  States  Senate. 

DEAR  SIR:  Last  fall  the  Paint  Manufacturers  Association,  which  I  represent  to-day, 
unanimously  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"Whereas  in  the  opinion  of  the  Paint  Manufacturers  Association  of  the  United  States 
tariff  legislation  requires  careful  and  expert  investigation  in  order  to  insure  equitable 
and  adequate  protection,  and  to  avoid  undue  favor  through  lack  of  full  comprehen- 
sion of  the  details  of  the  industry  involved;  and 

"Whereas  the  Paint  Manufacturers  Association  of  the  United   States  have  already 
gone  on  record  as  approving  such  investigation  and  revision  of  the  Tariff  Schedule, 
based  on  the  findings  of  the  Tariff  Board:  Now  therefore 
"Resolved,  That  the  Paint  Manufacturers  Association  of  the  United  States  tender 

ite  cooperation  in  the  event  of  any  possible  tariff  revision  by  Congress,  and  that  a 

copy  of  this  resolution  be  sent  to  the  President,  the  members  of  Congress,  and  the 

Tariff  Board." 

No  request  for  any  information  has  been  received  from  those  in  charge  of  the  prepa- 
ration of  Schedule  A,  before  it  passed  the  House  and  no  opportunity  was  given  us 
there  for  a  hearing,  nor  lias  the  Tariff  Board  apparently  made  any  investigation  into 
production  cost  here  and  abroad,  as  shown  by  the  absence  of  any  figures  of  this  sort 
from  Appendix  C,  entitled  ''Glossary  on  Schedule  A." 

It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  lower  duties  proposed  show  lack  of  familiarity' 
with  the  intricacies  of  The  paint  business,  and  to  the  relation  between  what  are  raw 
materials  to  the  paint  grinder,  but  which  are  finished  products  to  the  dry  color  maker, 
from  whom  he  buys;  and  in  like  manner  raw  materials  to  the  dry  color  maker  are  in 
many  instances  the  finished  product  of  the  chemical  manufacturer,  who  in  turn 
derives  his  raw  material  from  the  output  of  the  mines  bearing  the  necessary  ores; 
or  in  the  case  of  the  vehicles  employed  in  the  making  of  prepared  paints,  principally 
linseed  oil,  which  in  turn  is  the  finished  product  of  the  crusher  of  flaxseed,  who  takes 
for  his  raw  material  the  flax,  the  product  of  the  farmer. 

^e  notice  also  the  omission  of  any  mention  of  flaxseed,  or  of  zinc  and  lead  bearing 
ores,  in  the  preparation  of  this  schedule,  though  they  are  directly  connected  with  our 
line  of  industry. 

It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  make  changes  in  the  tariff  on  any  of  these  materials 
without  having  due  regard  to  the  others,  and  this  is  why  we  protest  against  them, 
until  due  consideration  can  be  given  to  these  facts,  and  data  can  be  procured  that  will 
show  the  costs  of  production  here  and  abroad. 

In  the  short  time  since  the  passage  of  Schedule  A  by  the  House  we  are  unable 
ourselves  to  furnish  any  data  other  than  to  state  that  from  investigations  made  the 
committee  of  our  association  reported  in  1909,  at  the  time  the  Payne  bill  was  being 
considered,  as  follows: 


SCHEDULE   A.  355 

PARAGRAPH  56— PAINTS,  COLORS,  ETC. 

"From  investigations  made  your  committee  is  not  far  wrong  in  stating  that  the 
wages  paid  in  this  country  are  from  two  and  a  half  to  three  times  greater  than  are  paid 
for  similar  labor  in  most  foreign  countries.  This  being  true,  then  to  reduce  the  tariff 
to  any  appreciable  extent  would  necessarily  mean  a  proportionate  reduction  in  the 
wage  scale  of  the  people  employed  in  the  paint  factories,  etc." 

We  are  able,  however,  from  the  Tariff  Board's  glossary  on  Schedule  A,  to  observe 
that  the  English  statistics  for  1907  give  in  round  numbers  a  total  cost  of  $27,000,000 
for  raw  materials  of  paint  and  varnish  and  of  $40,000,000  for  the  value  of  the  product, 
showing  the  raw  materials  to  be  in  the  proportion  of  two-thirds  to  the  value  of  the  fin- 
ished product,  which  almost  exactly  accord  with  the  proportion  in  this  country  for 
1905,  when  the  cost  of  raw  materials  was  $60,000,000  and  the  value  of  the  product 
$90,000,000,  and  again  in  1910  when  the  cost  of  the  raw  materials  was  $80,000,000  and 
the  value  of  the  product  $124,000,000.  This,  we  think,  shows  how  much  care  has 
previously  been  exercised  in  preceding  tariff  measures,  including  the  one  under  which 
we  are  now  operating,  and  that  by  reason  of  the  present  tariff  our  manufacturers  are 
not  selling  their  product  at  any  higher  percentage  on  ita  cost  than  in  England.  Yet 
we  are  paying  higher  wages  and  more  for  all  the  expenses  of  a  manufacturing  business. 

The  present  tariff  has  produced  no  trust,pool,  or  agreement  on  prices.  Internal 
competition  to  use  the  words  of  another,  "Has  reduced  the  price  or  the  article  to  a 
minimum  of  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  capital  employed." 

In  our  judgment  it  is  radically  wrong  to  reduce  the  tariff  on  paragraph  68,  when 
applied  to  our  particular  line  of  industry,  because  our  products  contain  a  large  per- 
centage of  linseed  oil,  now  paying  a  tariff  of  15  cents  a  gallon  which  it  is  proposed  to 
reduce  to  13  cents  a  gallon,  equivalent  to  but  3  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Meanwhile,  two 
flax  crop  failures  prevent  our  buying  linseed  oil  on  a  world's  market  basis,  as  hereto- 
fore, and  thus  handicaps  us  by  this  proposed  13  cents  a  gallon.  If  2  cents  a  gallon  on 
oil,  then  5  cents  a  bushel  should  be  taken  off  flaxseed.  It,  therefore,  to  our  minds, 
furnishes  no  excuse  for  a  reduction  of  from  30  to  20  per  cent  on  the  mixed  paints,  colors 
in  oil,  etc.,  mentioned  in  this  paragraph,  for  in  these  products  the  price  of  oil  and  the 
tariff  thereon  determines  more  largely  the  cost  of  the  products  than  any  other  item. 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  complaining  about  the  tariff  on  linseed  oil.  We 
believe  the  farmer  should  have  protection,  and  have  backed  that  belief  by  furnishing 
through  voluntary  contribution  collected  by  members  of  our  association  many  thou- 
sands of  dollars  for  putting  into  effect  methods  devised  by  Prof.  Bolley,  of  the  North 
Dakota  Agricultural  College,  that  would  produce  a  higher  rate  of  yield  per  acre  and 
prevent  rust.  We  believe  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States  that  the  flax  planter 
should  not  be  discouraged  by  the  prospect  of  any  lower  duty  on  either  the  seed  or  the 
oil  which  is  pressed  from  it  in  order  that  we  may  again  be  independent  in  this  respect 
of  foreign  countries. 

Great  strides  have  been  made  in  the  scientific  preparation  of  paint,  especially  during 
the  higher  prices  of  linseed  oil,  and  a  use  has  been  found  for  the  soya  bean  oil  to  the 
extent  of  5,500,000  gallons  imported  during  1911,  where  a  few  years  prior  there  was 
practically  none  imported.  Yet  it  is  proposed  to  transfer  this  from  the  heretofore  free 
list  and  impose  a  tariff  of  one-fourth  cent  a  pound. 

In  like  manner  Chinese  wood  oil,  of  which  5,800,000  gallons  were  imported  during 
1911,  and  of  very  recent  use  in  our  industry  heretofore  free,  it  is  now  proposed  to  tax 
5  cents  per  gallon. 

We  also  oppose  the  very  unusual  change  from  the  free  list  to  an  average  duty  of  1 
cent  a  pound  on  all  the  gums  used  in  the  manufacture  of  varnish.  This  proposed 
change,  together  with  the  tariff  on  china  wood  oil,  will  increase  the  cost  of  perhaps  50 
per  cent  of  all  the  varnishes  used,  so  we  are  told  by  the  varnish  makers.  So  closely 
connected  are  the  paint  and  varnish  industries  that  the  line  between  them  can  not  be 
drawn,  and  this  will  manifest  itself  in  increased  cost  of  many  of  the  preparations  made 
by  the  paint  manufacturers. 

Paragraph  63,  among  other  things,  relates  to  enamel  paints  made  with  varnish.  The 
proposed  tariff  of  25  per  cent  is  a  reduction  from  35  per  cent,  this  in  spite  of  the  pro- 
posed changes  which  increase  the  cost  here,  as  above  stated,  of  all  varnishes,  thus  in- 
creasing the  cost  of  enamel  paints  made  from  varnish. 

The  paint  industry  is  a  large  and  growing  one,  having  increased  40  per  cent  in  five 
years  and  showing  sales  in  1910  of  $124,000,000.  We  dislike  to  see  any  changes  made 
that  would  jeopardize  this  growth,  and  we  believe  the  changes  proposed  will  effect 
not  only  the  manufacturers  of  paint,  but  clear  along  the  line  until  it  reaches  the  farmer 
who  raises  the  flax  and  the  miner  who  produces  the  ore  as  well  as  the  laborer  employed 
by  them  all. 


356  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  56— PAINTS,  OOLOBS,  ETC. 

In  the  limited  time  in  which  this  matter  has  come  up  there  have  been  passed  reso- 
lutions by  local  bodies  in  our  line  of  industry  in  Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia, 
and  also  the  principal  cities,  protesting  against  these  changes,  and  a  thorough  canvass 
of  the  entire  trade  has  shown  that  the  position  here  taken  is  unanimously  endorsed. 
Respectfully, 

PAINT  MANUFACTURERS  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
HERBERT  W.  RICE,  Chairman,  Tariff"  Committee* 

BSIEF  OF  GEO.  S.  MEPHAM  &  CO.,  EAST  ST.  LOUIS,  ILL. 

EAST  ST.  Louis,  ILL.,  January  2, 1913. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  are  advised  that  hearing  on  Schedule  A  present 
tariff  will  be  held  January  6  next  and  that  brief  statements  of  facts 
and  suggestions  will  be  welcomed. 

We  are  interested  in  the  mining  and  manufacturing  of  colors  and 
have  a  factory  at  this  point. 

Our  principal  competition  comes  from  England  though  on  some 
items  we  have  strong  competition  from  France,  Germany,  and  Spain. 

The  writer  during  four  visits  to  Europe  has  carefully  looked  into 
the  manufacture  and  production  of  paints  and  colors,  and  finds  first 
that  factories  in  this  country  are  equipped  with  better  machinery  than 
any  European  factory  he  visited,  but  that  American  factories  pay  from 
three  to  six  times  as  much  for  labor  than  is  paid  in  England,  Germany, 
France,  or  Spain.  In  England  machinery  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
paints  and  colors  because  of  cheap  labor  cost  may  be  bought  at  prices 
which,  added  to  duty  and  freight,  makes  the  machinery  laid  down  here 
at  East  St.  Louis  at  a  lower  cost  than  local  manufacturers  are  able  to 
produce,  which  makes  cost  of  machinery  in  factory  in  England  about 
one-half  the  cost  of  equipping  over  here  and  repairs,  an  important 
item,  equally  as  low. 

The  snipping  facilities  enjoyed  by  English  producers  is  in  itself  an 
important  item.  As  an  instance  the  present  rates  less  than  carload 
on  colors  from  English  port  to  Atlantic  seaboard  from  $2  to  $2.50  per 
ton.  Freight  on  same  items  from  here  to  seaboard  range  from  $7  to 
S8.60  per  ton,  which  tells  its  own  story  and  shows  the  necessity  for 
protection  if  American  factories  are  to  be  operated. 

We  would  say  that  with  present  duties  we  purchase  considerable 
quantity  of  goods  from  all  of  the  countries  named  above  because  they 
can  be  laid  down  at  less  than  they  can  be  produced  here  and  shipped 
to  seaboard  and  finally  the  English  producer  has  in  colonies  of  England 
and  great  purchasing  markets  of  the  world  to  which  British  producers 
are  admitted  by  preferential  duties  at  lower  rates  than  from  this 
country.  Is  it  wise  to  turn  over  a  still  larger  share  of  the  trade  in  the 
United  States  to  foreign  manufacturers  by  permitting  them  to  dispose 
of  their  surplus  products  in  this  country  to  the  extinction  of  American 
industry  and  the  employment  of  American  labor?  We  would  add 
that  our  crude  material  comes  from  Illinois,  Missouri,  Kansas,  Arkan- 
sas, Kentucky,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Tennessee,  Michigan,  and  Wis- 
consin. 


SCHEDULE   A.  357 

PARAGRAPH  69— PHOSPHORUS. 

We  close  with  the  statement  that  there  is  no  request  for  reduction 
in  tariff  on  items  covered  by  paragraphs  No.  42,  barytes;  No.  47, 
ocher,  sienna,  and  umber  earths;  No.  54,  whiting,  etc.,  and  No.  56, 
paints  and  colors  of  all  kinds,  and  a  reduction  in  tariff  would  only 
reduce  revenue  on  the  material  already  coming  into  this  country,  and 
permit  of  bringing  into  the  cheaper  grades  which  now  are  made  in 
the  United  States. 

Yours,  very  truly,  GEO.  S.  MEPHAM  &  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  57. 

Paris  green,  and  London  purple,  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
See  Arthur  Somers,  page  336. 

PARAGRAPH  58. 

Lead :  Acetate  of,  white,  three  cents  per  pound ;  brown,  gray,  or  yellow,  two 
cents  per  pound ;  nitrate  of,  two  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound ;  litharge,  two 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 
For  acetate  of  lead,  see  Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  page  327. 

PARAGRAPH  59. 

Phosphorus,  eighteen  cents  per  pound. 

PHOSPHORUS. 

LAMAR   CHEMICAL  WORKS  WRITES    CONCERNING 
PHOSPHORUS. 

NEWARK,  N.  J.,  January  16,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  reference  to  the  item  "Phosphorus"  in  the  proposed 
new  chemical  schedule. 

We  respectfully  request  your  committee  to  report  all  varieties  of 
phosphorus  on  the  free  list  in  the  new  chemical  schedule.  Under 
the  existing  tariff,  the  duty  on  phosphorus  is  18  cents  per  pound. 

The  manufacture  and  sale  of  phosphorus  is  practically  monopo- 
lized in  this  country  by  an  English  concern,  who  have  their  American 
plant  at  Niagara  Falls.  In  making  phosphorus,  labor  is  an  insignifi- 
cant item  in  the  cost.  The  necessary  raw  materials,  phosphate  rock, 
charcoal,  and  limestone,  are  very  cheap  and  abundant.  The  main 
cost  is  electrical  power  in  the  shape  of  heat.  The  electric  furnace  is 
employed  in  manufacturing  phosphorus,  and  the  Niagara  Co.  are 
fortunate  in  having  secured,  years  ago,  cheap  power  contracts  from 
the  electrical  power  plant  at  Niagara  Falls.  The  patents  on  the 
electric-furnace  method  of  making  phosphorus  have  expired. 

This  Niagara  Co.  are  also  joint  owners  with  one  of  the  large  chem- 
ical concerns  of  the  country  in  a  company  for  manufacturing  the 
compounds  of  phosphorus.  This  company  for  manufacture  of 
phosphorus  compounds  have  a  practical  monopoly  of  the  manufac- 
ture in  this  country  of  sirupy  phosphoric  acid  and  the  hypophosphite 
salts  of  sodium,  potassium,  and  calcium.  Phosphorus  is  the  main 
ingredient  and  item  of  cost  in  the  manufacture  of  sirupy  phosphorus 
acid  and  the  three  above-named  hypophosphites ;  and  without  a 
process  for  the  manufacture  of  phosphorus  here,  or  without  the 


358  TABIFF   HEABINQS. 

PABAGBAPH  59— PHOSPHOBTJS. 

removal  of  the  duty  on  phosphorus  it  is  impossible  for  any  concern 
to  enter  in  the  manufacture  of  sirupy  phosphoric  acid  or  hypophos- 
phites.  It  would  be  more  than  foolhardy  to  set  up  a  plant  for  the 
manufacture  of  these  compounds  of  phosphorus,  counting  on  a 
continuous  supply  of  the  raw  material  phosphorus  from  those  who 
control  the  American  market,  both  with  regard  to  phosphorus  and 
its  compounds. 

Furthermore,  the  American  manufacturer  of  phosphoric  acid, 
by  the  membership  of  its  parent  house  in  European  price  conven- 
tions, has  control  of  the  phosphoric  acid  that  is  imported  into  this 
country. 

Here  we  have  the  usual  order  of  things  reversed;  with  the  high 
prohibitive  tariff  on  the  raw  material,  phosphorus,  and  no  duty  on 
its  derivative,  phosphoric  acid.  The  duty  on  phosphorus  was 
undoubtedly  placed  thereon  at  the  time  when  its  use  was  so  large 
in  the  match  industry,  but  as  this  use  is  now  a  thing  of  the  past,  the 
duty  ought  to  be  removed  from  this  raw  material,  phosphorus. 
Rather,  there  ought  to  be  a  duty  on  phosphoric  acid,  which  is  the 
manufactured  article. 

Phosphoric  acid  is  being  used  in  ever-increasing  amounts  for  the 
refreshing  acidulous  fruit  drinks  which  are  so  popular  and  so  refresh- 
ing. Hypophosphites  are  used  in  medicine  very  largely  as  tonics. 

Our  company,  the  Lamar  Chemical  Works,  wish  to  engage  in  the 
manufacture  of  sirupy  phosphoric  acid  and  hypophosphites.  For 
these  articles  we  have  developed  economical  processes,  but  it  would 
be  poor  business  policy  to  commercially  develop  these  processes 
before  the  duty  is  removed  from  phosphorus.  We  are  a  young 
concern,  only  a  few  years  old,  and  to  take  up  the  manufacture  of 
phosphoric  acid  and  hypophosphites  under  these  conditions  would 
precipitate  a  war  with  the  old  established  concerns  which  would 
not  be  otherwise  than  disastrous  to  ourselves,  a  newcomer  in  this 
field. 

The  amount  of  tariff  revenue  that  is  derived  from  the  importation 
of  phosphorous  at  the  present  time  is  very  slight  indeed.  The  pre- 
vailing tariff  arrangements  on  this  raw  material  simply  perpetuate 
practical  monopoly  in  this  country.  So  far  as  revenue  is  concerned, 
it  would  be  much  better  to  admit  phosphorus  free  and  to  charge  a 
slight  duty  of  several  cents  per  pound,  for  example,  on  phosphoric 
acid.  This  would  remove  the  duty  from  the  raw  material  and 
place  it  upon  the  finished  material  and  at  the  same  time  increase 
the  revenues  derived  therefrom. 

Trusting  that  this  request  will  receive  favorable  consideration  at 
your  hands,  and  offering  our  services  in  case  we  can  supply  you 
with  any  further  information,  we  beg  to  remain, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

LAM  AH  CHEMICAL  WORKS, 
Per  iS.  TRIPP,  Secretary. 


SCHEDULE  A.  859 

PABAOBAPH  60— POTASH. 

PARAGRAPH  60. 

'  Bichromate  and  chromate  of  potash,  two  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound. 

POTASH. 

BRIEF  OF  NATUEAL  PRODUCTS  REFINING  CO. 

NATURAL  PRODUCTS  REFINING  Co., 

Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  January  2,  1913. 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  manufacture  bichromates  which  are  used  for 
tanning,  dyeing,  color  making,  etc. 

The  present  duty  on  bichromate  of  soda  is  If  cents  per  pound  (par. 
71  of  Schedule  A). 

The  present  duty  on  bichromate  of  potash  is  2J  cents  per  pound 
(par.  60  of  Schedule  A). 

The  Underwood  bill  of  last  session  proposed  a  tariff  of  only  three- 
fourths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  bichromate  of  soda  and  1  cent  per 
pound  on  bichromate  of  potash. 

Unless  we  have  adequate  protection,  our  business  will  be  seriously 
threatened  by  an  influx  of  foreign-made  goods,  as  we  will  not  be  able 
to  compete  owing  to  a  difference  in  cost  of  manufacture  of  about 
SI  .28  per  100  pounds. 

This  higher  cost  of  manufacture  in  our  country  is  due  primarily 
to  the  better  rate  of  wages  paid  employees  and  is  gone  into  in  detail 
in  tabulation  of  costs  attached. 

The  European  manufacturers  operate  under  a  trust  or  pool  known 
as  a  "carts!"  and  command  a  uniform  price  of  5£  cents  per  pound 
on  bichromate  of  soda,  whereas  the  price  in  this  country,  owing  to 
keen  competition  is  4f  cents  to  4|  cents  per  pound. 

Without  sufficient  tariff  protection  the  European  trust  will  be 
enabled  to  dump  their  goods  in  this  country  even  at  less  than  our 
cost  of  manufacture  owing  to  their  ability  to  stand  an  actual  loss 
here  by  pooling  their  interests  and  selling  at  their  own  high  prices 
in  their  markets,  thus  forcing  the  American  manufacturer  out  of 
business  and  gaining  control  of  the  market. 

It  is  generally  understood  that  they  are  enlarging  their  works  in 
view  of  the  anticipated  tariff  reduction  here  with  the  deliberate 
purpose  of  using  our  market  as  a  dumping  ground  as  above  set  forth. 

We  respectfully  submit  the  above  facts  for  your  consideration  and 
plead  for  a  schedule  rate  of  not  less  than  1£  cents  per  pound  on 
bichromate  of  soda  and  not  less  than  2  cents  per  pound  on  bichromate 
of  potash. 

The  following  is  an  analy- sis  of  the  difference  in  cost  of  manufacture 
of  bichromates  in  the  United  States  as  compared  with  cost  in  the 
German  Empire. 


United 
States. 

Germany. 

Labor  

per  100  pounds.  . 

SI.  00 

80.40 

Sulphuric  acid  

do  

.33 

.15 

General  expenses  (clerk  hire,-  chemists,  superintendent)  

do.... 

1.00 

.50 

Total  difference    .             

2.33 

1.05 

360  TAEIFF   HBABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC   POTASH. 

Showing  an  advantage  of  $1.28  per  100  pounds  in  favor  of  the 
German  manufacturer. 

These  figures  were  obtained  from  facts  supplied  us  by  a  German 
expert,  and  also  by  one  of  our  own  representatives  who  studied  con- 
ditions in  Germany  before  we  engaged  in  this  business. 

Our  average  wage  per  man  per  day  in  the  manufacture  of  bichro- 
mates is  $2.25,  wnereas  the  average  per  diem  rate  in  the  German 
Empire  is  90  cents. 

It  may  be  added  that  rate  of  freight  from  points  on  the  Rhine  to 
western  cities  via  Canadian  route  is  practically  the  same  as  rates  in 
force  from  Jersey  City  to  the  same  points. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

NATURAL  PRODUCTS  REFINING  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  61. 

Caustic  potash,  or  hydrate  of,  refined,  in  sticks  or  rolls,  one  cent  per  pound; 
chlorate  of,  two  cents  per  pound. 

REFINED   CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

BRIEF  OF  NIAGARA  ALKALI  CO.  REGARDING  PROPOSED  DUTY 
ON  REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

NIAGARA  FALLS,  N.  Y.,  January  4,  1918. 
The  WATS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIRS:  Section  61  of  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  in 
Schedule  A  is  as  follows: 

"Caustic  potash,  or  hydrate  of,  refined,  in  sticks  or  rolls,  1  cent 
per  pound;  chlorate  of,  2  cents  per  pound." 

Our  request  is  that  this  section  be  so  amended  that  the  words 
"refined,  in  sticks  or  rolls,"  be  stricken  put,  and  the  words  "containing 
over  75  per  cent  true  caustic  potash"  inserted  in  their  stead. 

We  are  reliably  informed  that  the  underlying  reason  for  the  form 
of  the  old  law  was  that  a  large  part  of  the  crude  caustic  potash  used 
in  the  United  States,  showing  about  65  per  cent  caustic  potash  and 
the  balance  soda  and  other  impurities,  came  from  the  wood  ashes  of 
the  Canadian  lumber  camps,  and  it  was  intended  to  allow  this  to  come 
in  free  of  duty;  but  the  refined  or  high-grade  potash,  which  practi- 
cally all  came  from  Germany  and  was  always  packed  in  sticks  or 
rolls,  was  expected  to  pay  the  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

In  recent  years  the  electrolytic  process  for  making  caustic  potash 
makes  it  possible  to  manufacture  high-grade  caustic  potash  of  from 
90  to  96  per  cent  direct,  arid  this,  being  packed  in  barrels  and  drums, 
evades  the  duty. 

The  insertion  of  the  words  "containing  over  75  per  cent  true 
caustic  potash"  would  still  admit  free  of  duty  the  crude  potash 
provided  same  be  not  a  chemical  mixture  of  potash  and  soda. 

Thus  the  proper  effect  of  this  change  will  be  to  force  the  present 
large  importations  of  almost  pure  caustic  potash,  packed  in  drums 
and  barrels,  to  pay  the  legitimate  revenue  to  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment, which  they  have  been  evading  in  recent  years,  and  at  the 
same  time  afford  the  Americ'an  manufacturer  the  incidental  pro- 
tection necessary  to  his  continuing  in  this  business. 


SCHEDULE   A.  361 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

That  he  is  justly  entitled  to  this  consideration  we  think  is  shown 
conclusively  in  the  following  pages. 

That  the  Government  is  entitled  to  the  revenue  of  nearly  $100,000 
yearly  which  this  duty  would  produce  goes  without  saying. 

That  no  hardship  would  accrue  to  the  American  consumer  of  caustic 
potash  is  plain,  from  the  fact  that  within  the  past  four  years  the 
wholesale  price  has  been  reduced  by  the  importers  from  $120  per  ton 
to  around  $80  per  ton,  in  their  effort  to  drive  the  American  manufac- 
turer out  of  business,  and  the  duty  asked  would  in  no  case  increase 
the  price  to  more  than  $100  per  ton,  whereas  the  forcing  of  the 
Americans  out  of  business  will  allow  the  importers  to  restore  the  old 
price  of  $120,  which  is  really  very  little  lower  than  the  present  prices 
in  Europe,  protected  as  they  are  from  American  competition  by 
import  duties,  high  freights,  and  discriminating  attitudes  of  steam- 
ship lines. 

As  a  further  guaranty  to  American  consumers,  we  understand  that 
the  importers  have  assured  their  customers  that  they  would  see  that 
no  duty  is  imposed  by  Congress,  and  if  one  be  imposed,  the  importers 
will  pay  same.  All  the  contracts  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co.  have  made 
provide  that  there  will  be,  no  increase  of  the  contract  price  on  account 
of  duty. 

Even  in  case  the  importers  fail  to  live  up  to  this  contract  agreement, 
what  with  our  productive  capacity  and  that  of  American  caustic 
soda  producers  who  can  also  produce  caustic  potash,  there  will  be  no 
possibility  of  American  consumers  suffering  from  the  duty. 

A  short  statement  of  the  development  of  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co. 
will  doubtless  suffice  to  put  plainly  before  you  the  situation  so  as  to 
demonstrate  the  fact  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  fully  entitled 
to  the  incidental  protection  that  would  be  afforded  by  the  small  duty 
asked. 

For  a  number  of  years  previous  to  1907  the  Roberts  Chemical  Co., 
possessed  of  one  of  the  pioneer  electrolytic  processes  for  the  manu- 
facture of  caustic  potash,  operated  a  small  plant  in  Niagara  Falls, 
using  500  horsepower  and  producing  about  200  tons  of  90  per  cent 
caustic  potash  per  annum. 

The  raw  material,  muriate  of  potash,  which  was  then  and  still  is 
used  for  manufacturing  caustic  potash,  is  found  only  in  the  vicinity 
of  Stassfurt,  in  Prussia,  and  its  production  is  controlled  by  the  German 
Potash  Trust,  or  Kali-Syndikat  of  Berlin,  Germany,  under  the 
auspices  of  the  German  Government. 

The  competitors  of  the  Roberts  Chemical  Co.  were  the  agents  of  the 
Griesheim  Caustic  Potash  Trust,  some  of  the  members  of  which  also 
owned  mines  belonging  to  the  general  potash  trust  mentioned  above. 

The  Roberts  Co.  was  warned  that  it  must  not  attempt  to  sell  its 
product  to  the  soap  or  woolen  trades,  which  consumed  over  95  per 
cent  of  the  caustic  potash  used  in  America.  Should  they  do  so,  the 
importers  threatened  the  price  of  raw  material  muriate  would  be 
increased  and  the  price  of  manufactured  caustic  potash  would  be 
decreased  until  the  Roberts  Co.  was  driven  from  business. 

Therefore  the  Roberts  Co.  confined  itself  to  the  small  trade  obtain- 
able at  around  $140  per  ton  and  allowed  the  impression  to  be  created 
by  the  importer  that  only  imported  caustic  potash  could  be  used  by 
tne  soap  and  woolen  trades. 


362  TAEIPP  HEAE1NGS. 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

Even  with  this  high  price,  with  such  a  small  factory,  and  with  such 
a  high  price  for  raw  material,  the  company  could  make  no  money,  and 
gradually  went  from  bad  to  worse,  until  at  the  end  of  1907  the  plant 
was  shut  down  for  lack  of  funds  to  go  further. 

At  the  end  of  1908  some  parties  holding  a  mortgage  on  the  property 
leased  the  plant  and  ran  it  during  the  year  1909  under  the  trade  name 
of  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co.,  not  incorporated,  with  the  result  that  a 
heavy  loss  was  sustained. 

During  the  year  1909  the  Kali  Syndikat  was  temporarily  dissolved 
and  one  of  the  mines  belonging  to  same  was  purchased  by  American 
fertilizer  people,  who  had  at  the  same  time  purchased  considerable 
phosphate-rock  holdings  in  Tennessee,  among  which  were  those 
belonging  to  the  writer,  who  is  a  native  of  Nashville,  Tenn.,  and  who 
was  one  of  the  pioneers  in  the  development  of  the  large  phosphate- 
rock  business  in  that  State. 

Among  other  interests  taken  over  at  the  same  time  was  the  mort- 
gage and  lease  on  the  old  Koberts  Chemical  Co. 

The  writer  was  asked  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  possibilities 
of  this  old  business,  as  a  result  of  which  he  reported  that  the  old 
plant  was  practically  worthless,  entirely  obsolete,  and  could  not  be 
profitably  operated. 

He  further  advised,  however,  that  with  the  low-price  contract  held 
by  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co.  for  raw  material,  and  with  a  new  plant 
using  an  up-to-date  German  process  which  would  make  caustic 
potash  that  could  compete  with  the  German  product  in  the  soap  and 
woolen  trades,  a  profitable  business  could  be  established. 

Negotiations  thereupon  began  with  the  German  owners  of  one  of 
the  best  processes  for  making  caustic  potash;  the  old  Roberts  Chem- 
ical Co.,  the  American  lessees  and  the  mortgage  holders,  which  re- 
sulted in  the  formation  of  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co.  (Inc.),  ah1  the  old 
American  stockholders  of  the  Roberts  Co.,  becoming  stockholders  of 
the  new  company,  the  management  being  placed  in  the  writer's  hands. 

The  old  plant  was  put  in  shape  to  work  to  better  advantage  pending 
tlae  construction  of  a  new  plant,  and  active  and  vigorous  efforts  were 
made  to  enter  the  soap  and  woolen  trades. 

In  May,  1910,  the  first  bomb  exploded  in  the  new  business  was  the 
passage  by  the  German  Reichstag  of  the  celebrated  potash  law,  which 
had  the  effect  of  raising  the  price  to  all  American  contract  holders  on 
raw  material  muriate  of  potash  almost  100  per  cent. 

Being  sure  of  the  fact  that  the  American  Government  would  not 
permit  such  discrimination,  we  proceeded  with  our  work,  and  in 
January,  1911,  put  our  new  plant  in  operation  and  demonstrated  our 
ability  to  compete  in  quality  with  the  best  German  product. 

In  the  meantime,  at  the  end  of  1909,  true  to  their  threat,  the 
importers  reduced  wholesale  prices  on  caustic  potash  to  the  soap  and 
woolen  trades  to  S102.50  per  ton,  making  the  new  price  apply  on  old 
contracts,  thus  preventing  our  securing  any  large  part  of  this  business 
for  1910. 

Similar  tactics  were  pursued  in  the  last  part  of  1910,  the  reduction 
this  time  being  to  S95  per  ton  and  again  applying  to  unfilled  portions 
of  old  contracts. 

Again  in  1911  similar  reductions  with  similar  application  to  old 
contracts  brought  the  wholesale  price  to  $90  per  ton. 


SCHEDULE   A.  363 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

By  January  1,  1911,  we  became  convinced  that  nothing  would  be 
done  by  the  United  States  Government,  and  compromised  our  con- 
tract with  the  German  Potash  Trust  at  about  an  80  per  cent  increase 
above  our  old  contract  price  for  raw  material  muriate  of  potash. 

In  the  meantime  we  secured  a  considerable  amount  of  the  American 
business  by  meeting  the  prices  of  the  importers,  and  of  course  having 
to  go  slightly  lower  to  induce  users  to  change. 

Congress  being  in  session  we  presented  our  case,  and  a  bill  passed 
the  House  in  which  was  imposed  a  duty  of  $12  per  ton,  and  fearing 
this  would  become  law,  the  foreign  manufacturers  offered  to  let  us 
have  40  per  cent  of  the  business  and  raise  the  price  to  $110  per  ton 
if  we  would  withdraw  our  request  for  duty.  This  we  positively 
declined  to  consider,  and  after  the  bih1  failed  to  pass  the  Senate,  a 
further  reduction  wras  made  by  the  foreigners,  applying  to  remainder 
of  1912  and  all  of  1913,  putting  wholesale  prices  down  to  as  low  as  $80 
per  ton. 

Thereupon  we  decided  to  again  enlarge  our  plant  to  treble  its 
present  capacity,  using  the  excess  capacity  for  making  caustic  soda 
and  trusting  to  securing  a  duty  from  the  next  Congress  on  caustic 
potash. 

We  will  have  invested  by  July,  1913,  about  $800,000  in  this  country, 
in  excess  of  cost  of  process,  patents,  etc.,  purchased  in  Germany,  and 
will  have  150  American  laborers,  clerks,  etc.,  with  nearly  40  American 
stockholders,  whose  interests  we  must  protect. 

If  we  can  secure  our  reasonable  share  of  the  American  business  at 
prices  around  $100  per- ton,  we  can  pay  the  necessarily  high  American 
wages,  pay  the  increased  price  for  raw  material  necessitated  by  the 
laws  of  the  German  Government,  and  still  pay  a  reasonable  dividend 
to  our  stockholders  on  their  large  investment. 

If  the  original  contract  price  still  held,  it  would  amount  to  a  differ- 
ence to  us  of  nearly  $24  per  ton  of  finished  product,  so  that  the  duty 
we  ask  of  $20  per  ton  would  not  give  us  back  even  the  advantage  of 
which  we  were  deprived  by  the  German  Government. 

Unless  we  secure  the  protection  asked  we  must  go  out  of  the  caustic 
potash  business  and  leave  the  field  to  our  German  competitors,  con- 
fining our  manufacture  to  caustic  soda,  except  for  the  few  American 
consumers  who  have  contracted  with  us. 

If  we  are  thus  forced  out,  the  American  consumers  will  be  made 
to  pay  the  old  high  prices  again,  and  hence  it  can  not  be  to  their 
interest  to  oppose  the  duty  named. 

Under  ordinary  circumstances  we  would  neither  need  nor  ask  for 
protection  from  anybody's  competition. 

When,  however,  an  American  industry  is  threatened  with  extinc- 
tion by  the  competition  of  manufacturers  working  under  the  wing  of 
a  Government  which  has  passed  laws  forcing  that  American  industry 
to  pay  nearly  double  for  its  raw  material,  it  is  manifestly  pioper  that 
the  article  manufactured  from  this  raw  material  should  be  made  to 
pay  its  just  revenue  to  the  United  States  Government  and  at  the 
same  time  afford  incidental  protection  to  the  American  industry. 

We  append  hereto  various  exhibits  giving  detailed  statistics  o?  pos- 
sible interest  to  your  committee  as  bearing  upon  the  subject. 


364  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

We  respectfully  urge  the  recommendation  on  your  part  that  the 
duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  be  pJaced  on  caustic  potash  and  one-half 
cent  per  pound  on  carbonate  of  potash. 

We  also  ask  that  the  present  auty  of  $4  per  ton  on  bleaching  pow- 
der, which  is  a  by-product  of  our  industry,  be  retained,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  there  are  still  more  than  50,000  tons  of  foreign  bleaching 
powder  imported  into  the  United  States  each  year  and  the  present 
American  manufacturers  can  not  afford  any  reduction  of  prices. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

H.  D.  RUHM. 
Vice  President  and  General  Manager  Niagara  Alkali  Co. 

EXHIBIT  A. 
[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.— Statistics.] 

The  selling  price  of  caustic  potash  has  gradually  decreased  from  7.52  cents  in  1907 
to  4.3  cents  in  1912,  as  shown  by  the  following  table: 

[Average  selling  price  of  caustic  potash  per  100  pounds.] 

1907 $7.  52 

1908 7.  25 

1909 5. 91 

Jan.  1  to  June  30,  1910 5.  38 

July  1  to  Dec.  31,  1910 5.17 

Jan.  1  to  June  30,  1911  (large  sale  of  liquid  held  price  up) 5.  26 

July  1  to  Dec.  31,  1911 4.  89 

January  and  February,  1912 4. 30 

Last  of  1912 4. 15 

The  increase  in  price  of  our  raw-material  potash  over  that  originally  contracted  for 
at  the  organization  of  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co.  amounts,  for  the  95  per  cent  grade,  to  $17 
per  ton. 

As  it  takes  1.4  tons  of  raw-material  muriate  of  potash  to  make  1  ton  of  90  per  cent 
caustic  potash,  this  amounts  to  increase  in  our  cost  of  $23.80  per  ton  of  caustic  potash, 
or  1.19  cents  per  pound. 

The  duty  asked  for  by  us  of  1  cent  per  pound  could  not  possibly  advance  the  price 
beyond  the  1910  figures,  which  are  very  much  lower  than  the  prices  paid  before  we 
started  business. 

Failure  to  impose  such  a  duty  will  destroy  this  industry  and  again  place  the  American 
consumer  at  the  mercy  of  the  German  manufacturer.  The  present  price  is  below  even 
the  German  cost  and  their  American  pales  are  now  made  at  a  loss.  They  can  do  this 
indefinitely,  because  they  sell  only  one-fifth  of  their  production  in  this  country  and 
receive  the  old  high  prices  in  Europe. 

We  are  prevented  from  getting  this  advantage  by  the  high  freight  rates,  and  in  addi- 
tion the  principal  markets  of  Europe — i.  e.,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  Sweden,  and 
Switzerland — all  charge  an  import  duty  on  caustic  potash,  as  shown  below: 

Austria,  0.95  cent  per  pound;  Germany,  0.5  cent  per  pound;  Italy,  0.2  cent  per 
pound;  Sweden,  0.25  cent  per  pound;  Switzerland,  0.10  cent  per  pound. 

Tho.se  countries  charging  a  low  duty  have  correspondingly  high  freight  rates. 


(Exhibit  A  2  omitted  in  printing  and  placed  in  the  files  of  the  committee.) 


EXHIBIT  A  3. 

A.  KLIPSTEIN  &  Co., 
New  York,  December  18,  1912. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  bill  which  was  introduced  in  the  last  Congress  and  passed  by  the 
House,  but  vetoed  bv  the  President,  making  changes  in  Schedule  A,  chemicals, "will, 
it  appears,  be  again  introduced  in  practically  the  same  form  in  the  new  Congress, 
which  will  undoubtedly  be  railed  in  extra  session  about  March  15  next. 


SCHEDULE  A.  365 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CATJSTIC  POTASH. 

This  bill  proposes  to  place  a  duty  of  three-fifths  cent  per  pound  on  caustic  potash 
and  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  carbonate  potash,  both  of  which  articles  have  been 
on  the  free  list  for  a  number  of  years. 

They  are  used  by  the  woolen  industry  as  a  raw  material,  and  it  seems  to  us  that 
they  should  continue  to  come  in  free,  so  as  not  to  increase  the  price  of  these  raw  mate- 
rials unnecessarily.  There  will  be  public  hearings  on  this  bill,  we  understand,  on 
January  6,  and  we  would  recommend  that  already  before  this  time  you  take  steps  so 
that  the  matter  can  be  properly  explained  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and 
especially  to  Mr.  Underwood,  the  chairman. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  act  promptly  in  the  matter.  If  we  can  be  of  any  assistance 
to  you  in  giving  you  any  information  or  points,  we  shall  be  very  glad  to  have  your 
inquiries,  and  beg  to  remain, 

Yours,  very  truly,  A.  KLIPSTEIN. 

EXHIBIT  B. 
[To  brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.] 

Following  invoices  show  comparison  of  prices  of  raw  material  under — 

(1)  Old  contract  before  tax  was  imposed: 

INTERNATIONAL  AGRICULTURAL  CORPORATION, 

New  York,  November  18,  1910. 

Sold  to  Niagara  Alkali  Works,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  steamship  George  Washington, 
at  New  York: 

V.  P.  250  bags  muriate  of  potash,  56,000  pounds,  99.1  per  cent— 69,370 
pounds,  80  per  cent;  $1.05  per  hundredweight $728.  39 

(2)  After  tax  imposed: 

INTERNATIONAL  AGRICULTURAL  CORPORATION, 

New  York,  February  10,  1911. 
Sold  to  Niagara  Alkali  Works,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  steamship  Roon,  at  New  York: 

Z.  U.  250  bags  muriate  of  potash,  56,000  pounds,  95.3  per  cent=66,710 

pounds,  80  per  cent;  66,710  pounds,  at  $1.05  per  hundredweight $700.  46 

(Duty  levied  by  German  Government  pursuant  to  authority  contained  in 
bill  passed  by  Reichstag  on  May  10, 1910),  303.58  dz.,  80  per  cent=152.99 
dz.,K20;  152.99  dz.,  at  M18.60=M2,845.61 680.29 

1, 380.  75 

(3)  Under  present  compromise  contract: 

GERMAN  KALI  SYNDIKAT,  G.  M.  B.  H., 

Berlin,  SW.,  11.,  August  20,  1912. 
Sold  to  Niagara  Alkali  Works,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  steamship  Patricia,  at  New  York: 

V.  S.  1,120  bags  muriate  of  potash,  min.  95  per  cent,  weighing  gross  102,256 
Kos.,  net  101,600  Kos.,  testing  97.7  per  cent= 124,079  Kos.,  at  80  per 
cent=273,560  pounds,  at  $39.65  per  2.000  pounds,  c.  i.  f .  New  York $5, 423. 33 

Less  freight  payable  at  New  York  at  9  marks  per  1,000  Kos. =£46.4= 
M20.40..  223.50 


5, 199. 83 
Less  1^  per  cent  for  cash 78. 00 

5, 121. 83 
Less  rebate  on  consc.  salts,  6|  per  cent  on  $5,423.33 366. 00 

4,  755.  83 


EXHIBIT  C. 
[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.— Explanatory.] 

There  is  perhaps  need  of  some  explanation  regarding  the  distinction  to  be  drawn 
between  the  various  forms  of  potash. 


366  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  61— BEFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

As  found  in  the  earth  in  the  potash  section  of  Germany,  potash  exists  as  muriate  or 
chloride  of  potassium,  just  as  common  salt  is  the  muriate  or  chloride  of  sodium.  The 
various  forms  of  this  muriate  or  chloride  of  potassium  mixed  with  sulphate  of  magne- 
sium and  chloride  of  sodium  or  common  salt  make  up  the  various  raw  material  potash 
salts  called  muriate,  carnallite,  kainit,  sulphate,  double  manure  salt,  etc.,  which  are 
concentrated  to  varying  degrees  of  purity  and  sold  for  use  in  fertilizers  and  as  the  raw 
materials  for  the  manufacture  of  different  chemical  products  of  potash,  such  as  chro- 
mate  of  potash,  bichromate  of  potash,  iodide  of  potash,  iodate  of  potash,  chlorate  of 
potash,  tartrate  of  potash,  prussiate  of  potash,  citrate  of  potash,  ferrocyanide  of  pot- 
ash, and  hydrate,  or  hydroxid  of  potash  which  is  commonly  known  as  caustic  potash. 

This  latter  article  is  the  product  in  the  manufacture  of  which  the  Niagara  Alkali  Co. 
is  now  engaged  and  for  the  production  of  which  this  company  has  a  plant  at  Niagara 
Falls. 

The  only  other  American  manufacturer  ever  engaged  in  the  electrolytic  production 
of  caustic  potash  was  the  Roberts  Chemical  Co.,  of  Niagara  Falls. 

Under  the  existing  tariff  law  the  various  manufactured  potash  compounds  named 
above  are  dutiable  as  follows:  Cents 

Bichromate  and  chromate  of  potash per  pound . .  2 J 

Chlorate  of  potash do 2 

Hydriodatc,  iodato,  and  iodide  of  potash do 25 

Nitrate  of  potash do $ 

Prussiate  of  potash,  red .do 8 

Prussiate  of  potash,  yellow ' do 4 

Cyanide  of  potash ad  valorem..  12J 

Bitartrate 4 


EXHIBIT  D. 
[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.    Letter  from  E.  M.  Sergeant.] 

NIAGARA  ALKALI  Co., 
Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  March  18,  1912. 
Mr.  IT.  D.  RTJHM, 

Vice  President  and  General  Manager  Niagara  Alkali  Co.,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y. 
DEAR  SIR:  Beg  to  advise  that  the  business  of  the  old  Roberts  Chemical  Co.  was 
managed  by  me  during  the  year  1909,  under  lease  from  the  Roberts  Chemical  Co.,  to 
Mr.  T.  C.  Meadows,  and  during  this  year  there  was  a  loss  incurred  of  between  forty 
and  forty-five  thousand  dollars,  due  to  the  reduction  in  the  selling  price  of  caustic 
potaslv  and  the  high  cost  of  raw  material. 

Very  truly,  yours,  E.  M.  SERGEANT,  Factory  Manager. 

EXHIBIT  E. 
[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.    Letter  from  F.  O.  Geyler.] 

NIAGARA  ALKALI  Co., 

Niagara  Falls,  N.   Y.,  March  18,  1912. 
Mr.  TT.  D.  RUHM, 

Vice  President  and  General  Manager  Niagara  Alkali  Co.,  Niagara  Falls,  N.   Y. 
DEAR  SIR:  I  beg  to  advise  that  we  had  a  five-year  contract  with  the  International 
Agricultural  Corporation  for  our  supply  of  raw  material,  namely,  muriate  of  potash 
at  price  of  $21  (basis,  80  per  cent)  per  ton  f.  o.  b.  New  York. 

After  the  German  Government  passed  the  new  law  placing  an  export  duty  on  muriate 
of  potash  we  were  forced  1o  surrender  our  contract  and  enter  into  a  new  one  with  the  Ger- 
man Kali  Syndicate  at  price  of  $38.05  (basis,  80  per  cent)  per  ton  f.  o.  b.  New  York. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

F.  0.  GEYLER,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


SCHEDULE   A.  367 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 
EXHIBIT  F. 

[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.    Statement  of  C.  H.  MacDowell.    Extract  copied  from  address  before  Chicago 
Division  of  the  American  Chemical  Society.] 

SHARP  PRACTICE  CHARGED. 

In  January  the  German  and  the  American  Governments  were  negotiating  their 
commercial  treaties  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Payne-Aldrich  Act. 
The  proposed  potash  law  was  not  introduced  into  the  Reichstag,  and  Washington 
was  given  to  understand  it  had  been  dropped.  Germany  was  then  given  our  mini- 
mum tariff  rates.  On  February  3,  1910,  the  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Reichstag, 
referred  to  a  committee,  reported  out  May  10,  and  passed  May  25,  the  United 
States  Government  protesting  vigorously  against  any  action  which  would  impair  the 
American  contracts.  The  debate  in  the  Reichstag  shows  clearly  that  the  American 
contracts  were  the  cause  of  the  new  legislation.  Minister  Sydow  states: 

"The  starting  point  for  myself  and  for  the  United  States  Government,  which  rec- 
ommends you  to  raise  the  charge  mentioned  in  paragraph  26  of  the  law  also  for  the 
older  contracts — the  so-called  Schmidtmann  contracts— are  principally  and  in  first 
rate  at  stake,"  etc. 

"In  the  contracts  a  clause  is  contained  wherein  it  has  been  stipulated  that  any 
governmental  charges  would  be  borne  by  the  purchasers.  If,  therefore,  the  parties 
had  to  count  upon  this  possibility,  if,  furthermore,  the  price  has  been  fixed  at  an 
exceedingly  low  rate  and  one  of  the  parties  undertook  to  pay  any  charges  in  excess, 
we  do  not  violate,  in  the  opinion  of  the  united  governments,  in  any  way  the  princi- 
ples of  fairness  and  justice,  if  we  now  take  the  expected  measures  with  regard  to 
these  contracts" — in  other  words,  gunning  for  the  American  contracts  through  the 
governmental  charge  feature  of  the  contracts,  and  yet  they  claim  there  is  no  dis- 
crimination against  America.  Neither  Schmidtmann  nor  the  Americans  are  natu- 
rally mentioned  in  the  law,  but  the  debates  and  newspaper  articles  all  show  that 
the  syndicate  and  the  Government  had  resolved  to  rid  themselves  of  these  contracts 
through  hostile  legislation.  Members  of  the  Reichstag  making  inquiry  were  given 
clearly  to  understand  that  the  bill  would  not  cause  trouble  with  the  United  States. 
The  day  the  legislation  was  passed,  Ambassador  Hill  was  assured  by  the  German 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  that  the  law  as  modified  would  in  no  way  impair  or  invali- 
date the  American  contracts,  and  Ambassador  Hill  advised  his  Government  by 
cable  to  this  effect.  The  law  was  promulgated  and  it  became  effective  May  28. 

GERMANY   KNEW   ABOUT  SCHMIDTMANN   CONTRACTS. 

Before  the  law  was  passed  the  German  Government  was  in  possession  of  copies  of 
the  American  contracts,  and  the  official  letter  returning  them  is  in  the  possession  of 
our  Department  of  State. 


EXHIBIT  G. 
[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.] 

A  paragraph  which  appeared  in  a  recent  issue  of  a  German  paper,  Zeitung  fuer 
Angewandte  Chemie: 

AMERICAN  COMPETITION  AGAINST  GERMAN  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 
[Translation.] 

"The  Niagara  Alkali  Co.,  successors  of  the  Roberts  Chemical  Co.,  tries  hard  to  com- 
pete with  the  German  caustic  potash  products  which  are  mainly  sold  by  the  chemical 
plant  of  Griesheim  Elektron.  The  company  tries  to  induce  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment to  levy  an  import  duty  upon  caustic  potash.  This  duty  would  seriously 
affect  the  competition  of  the  German  manufacturers.  It  appears  advisable  that  the 
German  manufacturers,  including  Neustassfurt  and  Westerregeln,  which  forms  a  part 
of  Kali  Syndicate,  as  well  as  the  German  Government,  give  this  matter  their  timely 
attention," 


368  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PAHAQKAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

EXHIBIT  H. 
[To  brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.J 

STATEMENT. 

In  order  to  show  the  extent  to  which  the  German  manufacturers  are  going  in  their 
efforts  to  put  us  out  of  business,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that,  inasmuch 
as  we  were  forced  to  sell  at  the  present  ruinously  low  prices  in  the  United  States  in 
order  to  meet  the  competition  brought  about  by  German  manufacturers,  we  decided 
we  would  attempt  to  sell  at  these  same  prices  in  Germany,  where  they  were  holding 
up  the  old-time  high  prices. 

We  found  that  with  the  prices  quoted  we  could  get  a  better  price  in  Germany  than 
we  had  to  sell  this  material  in  the  United  States  to  meet  competition,  even  adding 
the  freight. 

The  first  discovery  we  made  was  that  we  had  to  pay  duty  to  get  our  material  into 
Germany,  which  put  us  in  about  the  same  position,  leaving  us  the  same  price  on  our 
German  sales  as  we  would  realize  here  at  home. 

We  then  found  out  that  the  German  steamship  lines  had  been  instructed  by  their 
German  offices  to  refuse  any  caustic  potash  shipments  offered  them  for  Germany  and 
Mediterranean  ports.  In  this  way  we  are  debarred  from  the  foreign  market  by  the 
protection  afforded  German  manufacturers  by  the  German  Government  and  also  by 
the  refusal  of  steamship  lines  to  transport  our  product  to  German  ports,  and  we  are 
forced  to  sell  here  at  home  at  the  sacrifice  price  which  the  Germans  have  made  in 
order  to  put  us  out  of  business. 

EXHIBIT  I. 

[Brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.] 
Imports  of  caustic  potash. 


Revenue  lost 

by  United 

Tons. 

States  at  1 

cent  per 

pound. 

1909.... 

8,163  128 

$81,631.28 

1910  

8  304  696 

83  046  96 

1911  

7  069  837 

70  698.37 

1912  (first  10  mont  hs)  

7,685,003 

76,  850.  03 

312,  226.  64 

Totnl  1912  basis,  first  10  months,  estimated,  $92,220. 

Owing  to  rapid  increase  in  use  of  caustic  potash  in  the  United  States  there  will 
probably  be  no  decrease  in  above  imports  if  duty  of  1  cent  be  imposed. 


EXHIBIT  J. 

[To  brief  of  Niagara  Alkali  Co.    Letter  to  Representative  Simmons.] 

NIAGARA  ALKALI  Co., 
Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  July  29,  1911. 
Hon.  JAS.  S.  RIMMOXS, 

Member  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  SIMMONS:  I  have  for  acknowledgment  your  kind  forwarding  of  the 
Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports  for  July  25,  19li,  containing  marked  copy  of  report 
from  the  Brunswick  consul  headed  "Peace  in  the  German  potash  industry."  A 
careful  reading  of  this  statement  will  doubtless  convince  anyone  that  the  "peace" 
referred  to  consists  merely  in  the  American  purchasers  of  potash  having  given  up  in 
despair  of  securing  the  benefit  of  low-priced  contracts  which  they  had  made,  and  of 
having  accepted  the  terms  of  the  German  potash  syndicate,  with  the  hope  that  they 
may  be  able  to  now  overthrow  the  contracts  which  they  have  been  for  so  long  at- 


SCHEDULE   A.  369 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

tempting  to  defend,  and  on  the  strength  of  which  they  made  every  effort  to  secure 
American  intervention  in  preventing  the  German  potash  law  from  being  applied  to 
said  contract.  You  can  readily  see  that  this  does  not  relieve  OUR  individual  situation 
in  the  least,  but  leaves  us  held  to  pay  the  syndicate  price,  which  is  practically  equiv- 
alent to  our  having  to  pay  the  tax.  That  is,  if  we  carry  out  our  present  contract  made 
in  good  faith  with  the  independent  mines,  we  must  pay  the  German  tax.  If  we  join 
with  other  American  interests  and  claim  that  these  contracts  are  void,  we  must  then 
pay  a  price  to  the  syndicate  practically  equal  to  the  independent  contract  price  plus 
the  tax,  so  that  the  actual  result  is  to  leave  us  within  a  very  few  dollars  of  where  we 
have  been  all  the  time  since  the  situation  complained  of  was  inaugurated. 

We  are  therefore  in  the  same  position  as  to  needing  relief  and  feel  that  the  only 
adequate  relief  which  can  be  afforded  us  is  the  imposition  of  the  1-cent  duty,  now 
applying  to  refined  potash,  on  all  caustic  potash  imported  85  per  cent  or  over  in  grade. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  German  manufacturers  of  caustic  potash  also  purchase 
their  raw  material,  muriate  of  potash,  from  the  syndicate,  they  receive  special  prices 
for  this  raw  material  used  in  chemical  manufacture,  and,  being  themselves  members 
of  the  syndicate,  have  the  advantage  of  the  special  rebate  allowed  to  such  syndicate 
miners  who  have  chemical  plants. 

In  this  way  they  secure  their  raw  material  at  practically  the  price  we  had  expected 
to  secure  ours  from  the  independent  miners,  manufacture  their  caustic  potash  with 
cheap  labor  and  under  thoroughly  established  conditions,  ship  same  into  the  United 
States,  where  they  have  long  been  established  in  the  market,  and  we  are  forced  to 
meet  this  competition. 

The  matter  of  price  charged  for  the  caustic  potash  does  not  enter  into  the  question, 
as  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  present  prices,  provided  we  can  secure  our  share 
of  the  business.  You  can  readily  see  that  to  do  this  we  must  be  in  position  to  offer 
some  inducement  to  American  manufacturers  who  have  long  been  using  the  imported 
product,  and  if  with  the  other  adverse  conditions  already  set  out  we  have  to  still  further 
reduce  the  price  to  secure  the  business  we  can  not  make  both  ends  meet.  If,  however, 
the  imported  material  is  placed  at  a  disadvantage,  we  can  secure  the  business,  the 
American  consumer  will  pay  no  more  for  his  goods,  and  we  will  be  able  to  meet  the 
German  competition  regardless  of  the  unfair  conditions  imposed  by  the  German  law. 

We  trust  that  a  thorough  realization  of  these  conditions  will  induce  Congress  to 
afford  us  the  relief  desired  and  so  eminently  justified. 

Thanking  you  for  past  favors  and  for  your  further  kind  consideration  of  the  matter, 
I  am, 

Very  truly,  yours,.  H.  D.  RUHM, 

Vice  President  and  General  Manager. 

ROBERT   S.    WADDELL,    OF   PEORIA,   ILL,   ENTERS   PROTEST 
AGAINST  TARIFF  ON  CHLORATE  OF  POTASH. 

BUCKEYE  POWDER  Co., 

Peoria,  IU.,  January  8,  1918. 
CHAIRMAN  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  desire  to  file  the  following  brief  on  the  chemical 
schedule : 

I  respectfully  protest  against  any  tariff  on  chlorate  of  potash, 
because  it  will  not  produce  an  adequate  revenue  to  justify  a  protec- 
tive tariff. 

There  are  three  plants  in  the  United  States  manufacturing  this 
chemical  by  the  electrolytic  process,  located  at  Niagara  Falls,  in  Ver- 
mont, and  in  the  Sagmaw-Bay  City,  Mich.,  fields. 

The  entire  output  of  these  plants  is  controlled  by  J.  L.  and  D.  S. 
Riker,  46  Cedar  Street,  New  York  City,  who,  because  of  such  monop- 
oly, require  the  public  to  pay  exorbitant  profits. 

The  present  tariff  of  2^  cents  a  pound  enabled  J.  L.  and  D.  S.  Riker 
to  make  an  agreement  with  the  chemical  pool  of  Europe  by  the  terms 

78959°— VOL  1—13 24 


370  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  61— REFINED  CAUSTIC  POTASH. 

of  which  the  said  American  monopolists  shall  not  export  any  chlorate 
of  potash  to  foreign  countries  and  foreigners  shall  not  sell  or  quote 
prices  to  the  American  trade. 

This  agreement  prohibits  a  revenue  from  all  the  large  manufactur- 
ers of  Europe  and  nullifies  the  tariff  laws  of  this  country.  Will  Con- 
gress legislate  to  create  and  foster  this  conspiracy  by  continuing  the 
tariff  on  which  it  is  founded  ? 

Remove  the  tariff  and  there  would  remain  no  inducement  for  for- 
eigners to  enter  into  an  agreement  to  close  the  markets  of  this  country 
to  themselves. 

Chlorate  of  potash  costs  to  manufacture  abroad  3£  cents  per  pound 
in  Sweden,  3|  cents  per  pound  in  France  and  on  the  Continent.  The 
Hikers  sell  at  9£  cents,  and  it  costs  less  than  4  to  manufacture  it. 

The  Hikers  are  not  innocent  violators  of  the  law.  John  L.  Riker 
was  the  largest  stockholder  of  the  Laflin  &  Rand  Powder  Co.,  and 
took  part  in  the  conspiracy  that  formed  the  Du  Pont  Powder  Trust, 
and  his  successors  will  profit  by  the  dissolution  that  the  court  has  just 
entered. 

From  one  little  distribution  of  the  usufruct  in  that  case  I  extract 
the  following  from  the  record: 

Delaware  investment  stock  (exchanged)  issued  to: 

J.  L.  Riker. $140, 889.  44 

M.  J.  Riker 11, 300.  54 

D.  S.  Riker 3, 896.  75 

J.  C.  Riker 3,896.75 

Samuel  Riker 9, 118.  37 

W.  J.  Riker 3, 896.  75 

J.  J.  Riker 1, 169.  02 

E.  B .  Riker 779.  35 

S.  R.  Riker,  jr 779.  35 

Balance  to  the  Du  Pont  Trust. 

The  record  in  The  Government  v.  Du  Pont  Powder  Trust  shows  that 
the  Laflin  &  Rand  Powder  Co.,  of  which  John  L.  Riker  was  a  director, 
was  a  party  to  the  "world  agreement,"  dividing  the  markets  of  the 
world  between  the  American  and  foreign  trusts. 

That  agreement  prohibited  foreign  manufacturers  from  quoting  or 
selling  powder  to  "  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America." 

I  urgently  recommend  that  the  tariff  law  contain  a  provision  that 
if  it  be  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  President  that  should  any 
individual,  firm,  or  corporation,  protected  on  any  article  by  a  tariff, 
enter  into  a  conspiracy  or  agreement  dividing  markets,  or  otherwise 
defeating  this  Government  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  provided 
by  the  act,  or  shall  make  an  agreement  with  foreigners  to  manufac- 
ture foreign  brands  in  this  country,  then,  in  either  case,  the  President 
shall  place  such  article  on  the  free  list. 

I  suggest  this  as  a  rebuke  to  those  who,  for  private  gain  and  to 
create  a  monopoly  to  rob  the  public,  deprive  the  National  Treasury  of 
its  just  dues. 

Soliciting  the  kind  consideration  of  your  committee,  I  remain, 
Very  respectfully, 

ROBERT  S.  WADDELL. 


SCHEDULE   A.  371 

PARAGRAPH  64— POTASSIUM  CYANIDE. 
PEOTEST  AGAINST  ANY  DUTY  ON  CHLORATE  OF  POTASH. 

THE  FIRST  NATIONAL  BANK, 

Troy,  Ohio,  January  24,  1913. 
Hon.  J.  D.  POST, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  undersigned  hereby  respectfully  protests  against 
any  tariff  upon  imports  of  chlorate  of  potash  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  present  tariff  of  2£  cents  a  pound  has  resulted  in  an  illegal 
agreement  between  the  American  monopolists  who  control  the  Ameri- 
can production  of  chlorate  of  potash  and  the  European  chemical  pool, 
the  effect  of  which  is  that  the  American  monopoly  is  not  to  export 
any   chlorate   of   potash   to    foreign   countries    and   the   European 
monopoly  shall  not  sell  or  quote  prices  thereon  to  the  American  trade. 

2.  From  this  agreement  it  results  that  there  are  no  importations, 
and  therefore  no  revenue  to  the  United  States  from  that  source;  and 
the  American  monopoly  charges  consumers  9£  cents  a  pound  for  a 
product  that  costs  less  than  4  cents  a  pound  to  produce. 

3.  A  brief  that  has  been  filed  with  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Mr.  R.  S. 
Waddell,  of  Peoria,  111.,  gives  the  details  of  the  foregoing  statements 
and  also  additional  reasons  why  this  article  should  be  placed  on  the 
free  list. 

You  are  respectfully  urged  to  use  your  influence  and  vote  to  secure 
the  placing  of  chlorate  of  potash  on  the  free  list  in  the  interests  of  the 
American  manufacturers  who  use  that  product,  and  who,  by  reason  of 
this  tariff,  are  obliged  to  pay  an  exhorbitant  price  therefor,  without  a 
cent  of  incidental  benefit  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

JNO.  H.  DRURY. 

(A  communication  identical  with  the  above  was  filed  by  Harry  C. 
Downey,  on  behalf  of  W.  C.  Downey  &  €9.,  Springfield,  Ohio.) 

PARAGRAPH   62. 

Hydriodate,  iodide,   and  iodate  of  potash,   twenty-five  cents  per  pound. 
See  also  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  50. 
PARAGRAPH  63. 

Nitrate  of  potash,  or  saltpeter,  refined,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
PARAGRAPH  64. 

Prussiate  of  potash,  red,  eight  cents  per  pound;  yellow,  four  cents  per 
pound;  cyanide  of  potassium,  twelve  and  one-half  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

POTASSIUM  CYANIDE. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  ROESSLER  &  HASSLACHER  CHEM- 
ICAL CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4, 1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman    Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  We  respectfully  submit  that  the  two  principal  commercial 

cyanide  salts  be  dutiable  according  to  their  intrinsic  value,  as  follows: 

Potassium  cyanide,  at  2  cents  per  pound;  present  duty,  12£  per 

cent  =  2  cents  per  pound.     Sodium  cyanide,  at  2|  cents  per  pound; 


372  TAKIFF  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  64— POTASSIUM  CYANIDE. 

present  duty,  25  per  cent  =  4£  cents  per  pound.  Or  if,  for  revenue 
purposes,  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  be  desired,  that  both  potassium 
cyanide  and  sodium  cyanide  be  dutiable  at  2|  cents  per  pound.  Even 
at  the  higher  rate  of  dutv,  cyanide  of  potassium  can  not  now  be 
profitably  made  here,  so  that  an  actual  increase  hi  revenue  should 
result. 

The  first  proposed  duties  on  cyanides  gives  the  opportunity  for  a 
scientific  revision,  proportioned  to  their  intrinsic  values,  both  as  to 
quality  and  price. 

Uses  of  cyanides. — Both  the  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide  are 
extensively  used  for  electroplating,  case  hardening,  fumigation  (the 
generation  of  hydrocyanic-acid  gas  being  the  best  means  of  destroy- 
ing scale  insects  on  citrus  and  other  fruit  trees),  and  principally  for 
the  extraction  of  the  precious  metals  from  ores  and  tailings  by  what 
is  known  as  the  modified  MacArthur-Forrest  cyanide  processes. 

Value  comparisons. — Theoretically  100  per  cent  potassium  cyanide 
contains  40  per  cent  cyanogen;  100  per  cent  sodium  cyanide,  equiva- 
lent to  132^  per  cent  potassium -cyanide,  53  per  cent  cyanogen. 

The  available  cyanogen  in  both  salts  being  the  valuable  active 
principal  of  the  cyanide,  the  potassium  and  sodium  ingredients 
simply  acting  as  carriers  for  holding  the  cyanogen,  the  molecule  of 
sodium  having  a  larger  carrying  capacity  for  cyanogen  than  the 
molecule  of  potassium. 

Commercially. — Potassium  cyanide.  The  highest  test  for  this 
product  is  95/96  per  cent,  with  cyanogen  contents  of  38.4  per  cent. 
Sodium  cyanide,  equivalent  to  130  per  cent  cyanide  of  potassium, 
has  a  cyanogen  content  of  52  per  cent. 

The  comparative  values  of  the  sodium  and  potassium  salts  hence 
are  as  130  per  cent  is  to  95  per  cent. 

Therefore  in  order  to  place  sodium  cyanide  on  an  equal  basis  with 
potassium  cyanide  the  duty  on  the  sodium  salt  should  be  as  95: 
2  cent  =  130  :X,  making  potassium  cyanide  2  cents  per  pound  specific, 
equal  to  12^  per  cent  ad  valorem;  sodium  cyanide,  2f  cents  per  pound 
specific,  equal  to  12^  per  cent  ad  valorem;  or  should  revenue  be  the 
object  in  view,  a  uniform  rate  for  both  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide 
of  2|  cents  per  pound. 

History. — Any  reduction  in  sodium-cyanide  duty  below  12^  per 
cent  ad  valorem  would  threaten  the  abandonment  of  the  manufacture 
of  sodium  cyanide,  same  as  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  tariff  act 
of  1897,  making  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of  duty  from  25  per  cent  to 
12£  per  cent  ad  valorem,  caused  the  manufacture  of  potassium 
cyanide  to  be  abandoned  in  this  country,  and  compelling  at  the  same 
time  the  ultimate  closing  down  of  several  prussiate  of  potash  factories 
supplying  the  raw  material. 

CLASSIFICATION    UNDER    THE    PAYNE-ALDRICH    TARIFF    ACT,    1909. 

Potassium  cyanide,  paragraph  64,  12^  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Present  market  value,  S  pence  per  pound,  equal  to  16.22^  cents 
United  States  currency,  f.  o.  b.  European  seaport.  Twelve  and  one- 
half  per  cent  is  equivalent  to  2  cents  per  pound  specific. 

Sodium  cyanide,  paragraph  3,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Present 
market  value,  7  pence  per  pound  for  100  per  cent,  equal  to  9^  pence 


SCHEDULE  A.  373 

PABAGBAPH  64— POTASSIUM  CYANIDE. 

per  pound  for  130  per  cent,  equal  to  18.45  cents  United  States  cur- 
rency, f.  o.  b.  European  seaport.  Twenty-five  per  cent  equivalent 
to  4 1  cents  per  pound  specific. 

Import  records  under  potassium  cyanide,  which  include  all  cya- 
nides imported,  do  not  give  a  true  and  correct  idea  of  importation  or 
values  per  unit  after  deduction  of  nondutiable  charges.  For  the 
past  six  years  the  identity  of  cyanides  of  potassium  was  in  dispute; 
various  sodium  cyanide  mixtures  adjusted  to  98-99  per  cent  cyanide 
(39 £  per  cent  cyanogen)  were  claimed  for  entry  under  the  low  12£ 
per  cent  duty  rate. 

The  difference  between  the  various  cyanides  was  finally  recognized 
and  definitely  fixed  by  a  recent  General  Appraisers'  decision,  T.  D. 
326801,  abstract  29108,  June  27,  1912,  so  that  under  the  present 
laws  the  import  records  will  hereafter  give  a  true  record,  enumerating 
separately  the  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide  salts. 

According  to  a  second  ruling  of  the  Board  of  Appraisers,  T.  D. 
32823,  September  17,  1912,  abstract  29723,  the  mixtures  of  both 
cyanide  salts  in  various  proportions  were  also  classified  as  falling 
under  the  higher  rate  of  oluty. 

SUGGESTED    MODIFICATION   OF  DUTIES. 

Average  imports  of  the  last  six  years,  2,665,775  pounds,  $48,603.25. 

We  therefore  estimate  a  revenue  as  follows:  All  as  potassium 
cyanide,  2,500,000  pounds,  at  2  cents  per  pound,  $50,000;  50  per 
cent  each  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide,  1,250,000  pounds,  at  2 
cents  per  pound;  1,250,000  pounds,  at  2|  cents  per  pound;  total, 
$59,375. 

All  as  sodium  cyanide,  2,500,000  pounds,  at  2f  cents  per  pound, 
$68,750.  _ 

Or  uniform  rate  for  both  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide,  at  2f 
cents  per  pound,  $68,750. 

Witn  the  proper  adjustment  of  the  duty  of  the  two  cyanide  salts 
on  scientific  principles,  ample  revenue  will  be  provided  for  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  the  producer  and  consumer  will  be  encouraged  to 
develop  their  opportunities. 

We  therefore  petition  that  the  rates  of  duty  for  these  salts  be  fixed 
— for  potassium  cyanide,  at  2  cents  per  pound  specific;  sodium  cya- 
nide, at  2f  cents  per  pound  specific;  or  on  a  revenue  basis,  at  a  uni- 
form rate  for  both  potassium  and  sodium  cyanide,  at  2f  cents  per 
pound. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  ROESSLEK  &  HASSLACHER  CHEMICAL  Co., 
Louis  RUHL,  Assistant  Secretary. 


374  TABIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  65— MEDICINAL  PREPARATIONS. 

PARAGRAPH  65. 

Medicinal  preparations  containing  alcohol  or  in  the  preparation  of  which 
alcohol  is  used,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifty-five  cents  per 
pound,  but  in  no  case  shall  the  same  pay  less  than  twenty-five  per  centum,  ad 
valorem;  calomel,  corrosive  sublimate,  and  other  mercurial  medicinal 
preparations,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  all  other  medicinal  prepara- 
tions not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem:  Provided,  That  chemicals,  drugs,  medicinal  and  similar  sub- 
stances, whether  dutiable  or  free,  imported  in  capsules,  pills,  tablets,  lozenges, 
troches,  or  similar  forms,  and  intended  for  medicinal  purposes,  shall  be  duti- 
able at  not  less  than  the  rate  imposed  by  this  section  on  medicinal  preparations. 

For  medicinal  preparations  n.  8.  p.  f.,  etc.,  and  calomel  etc.,  see  also  Mallinckrodt 
Chemical  Works,  page  50;  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  108;  John  F.  Queeny, 
page  82;  Verona  Chemical  Co.,  page  72. 

MEDICINAL  PREPARATIONS. 

BRIEF   SUBMITTED   BY  BAITER   CHEMICAL   CO.,   NEW    YORK 

CITY. 

NEW  YORK,  January  7,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  O. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  understand  that  in  the  contemplated  revision  of 
the  tariff  your  committee  is  about  to  consider  the  chemical  schedule. 

In  this  connection  we  would  respectfully  urge: 

First.  That  the  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  medicinal  prepara- 
tions and  chemical  compounds  be  wholly  eliminated  or  reduced  by 
at  least  50  per  cent. 

Second.  That  the  duty  per  pound  of  55  cents  on  medicinal  prepara- 
tions in  the  manufacture  of  which  alcohol  is  used  be  abolished. 

Naturally  the  effect  of  such  changes  on  wages  is  of  primary  impor- 
tance. A  revision  of  the  tariff  that  will  in  any  appreciable  degree 
disturb  economical  conditions  or  furnish  a  pretext  for  certain  classes 
to  dictate  terms  of  employment  tending  to  lower  the  standard  of 
living  can  scarcely  be  viewed  with  favor.  On  this  point  we  submit 
that  the  manufacture  of  medicinal  preparations  in  this  country  is  no 
more  expensive  than  in  the  principal  European  countries,  Germany 
and  England,  for  instance.  In  this  cost  me  item  of  labor  is  rela- 
tively very  much  smaller  than  in  the  case  of  shoes,  clothing,  machin- 
ery, etc.  The  principal  cost  lies  in  the  raw  materials  and  expert 
knowledge,  together  with  the  sales  cost.  Automatic  machinery, 
generally  recognized  as  having  reached  a  higher  degree  of  efficiency 
and  a  larger  capacity  in  the  United  States,  thanks  to  American 
ingenuity  and  enterprise,  enables  the  manufacture  of  such  prepara- 
tions here  at  a  cost  as  low  if  not  lower  than  in  the  Old  World. 

In  the  trade  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  American  manufacturers  of  medicinal  prepararions  annually 
transact  an  extensive  export  business.  Many  of  them  maintain 
branch  offices  in  nearly  all  European  countries;  in  Australia,  South 
America,  and  sections  of  Asia  and  Africa,  successfully  competing 
with  similar  articles  of  European  manufacture. 

Placing  medicinal  preparations  and  chemical  compounds  on  the 
free  list  would  not  cause  or  stimulate  serious  competition  by  Euro- 
pean products.  This  is  particularly  true  of  articles  protected  by 


SCHEDULE  A.  375 

PARAGRAPH  65  -MEDICINAL  PREPARATIONS. 

letters  patent,  where  the  exclusive  right  of  manufacture  is  vested  in 
the  patentee.  Where  the  patented  article  is  manufactured  in 
Europe  the  cost  to  the  American  consumer  is  unnecessarily  25  per 
cent  higher  through  the  present  rate  of  duty.  In  such  a  case 
obviously  the  consumer  pays  the  duty  and  can  obtain  the  article 
only  from  the  patentee,  as  no  one  in  this  country  can  legally  manu- 
facture it. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  duty  of  25  per  cent  is  in  actual  practice  30 
per  cent,  as  no  importer  wouJd  care  to  handle  foreign-made  articles 
on  a  margin  of  less  than  5  per  cent.  The  result  is  that  American 
manufacturers  can  and  do  keep  their  prices  more  than  30  per  cent 
above  European  parity. 

A  reduction  of  the  rate  to  even  10  per  cent  would  still  be  ample 
protection  to  the  American  manufacturer,  and  would  also  discourage 
many  of  them  from  advancing  their  prices  more  than  15  per  cent 
over  those  of  Europe.  It  is  confidently  believed  that  under  an 
average  rate  of  10  per  cent  the  Government  would  derive  more 
revenue  than  it  does  at  present,  and  it  would  seem  reasonable  to 
expect  that  such  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  would  result  in  lower  prices 
on  American-made  articles  and  will  leave  a  handsome  margin  of 
profit.  Here,  again,  the  consumer  will  be  the  gainer. 

With  regard  to  the  rate  on  preparations  in  the  manufacture  of 
which  alcohol  is  used,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  on  denatured  alcohol  was  abolished  some  time  ago. 
Hence  the  present  customs  duty  on  preparations  of  this  character 
would  seem  to  be  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  antiquated.  Surely  no 
competition  need  be  feared,  inasmuch  as  denatured  alcohol  is  pro- 
duced in  this  country  at  a  lower  cost  than  in  Europe. 

We  thoroughly  appreciate  the  diffculty  of  adjusting  tariff  duties 
upon  a  basis  that  will  meet  the  approval  of  all  commercial  interests 
without  discriminating  against  any  particular  industry  or  geographical 
section  of  the  countiy. 

When  the  rate  of  duty  can  be  lowered  without  the  probability  of 
profitable  foreign  competition,  without  danger  of  reducing  wages, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  to  lower  the  cost  to  the  consumer,  plain  busi- 
ness principles,  simple  justice,  and  the  welfare  of  the  public,  aside 
from  any  political  advantage  that  might  reasonably  be  expected, 
would  seem  to  demand  that  that  change  be  made. 

Please  accept  our  high  appreciation  of  your  courtesy  in  considering 
the  suggestion  herein  set  forth,  and  believe  us, 
Very  truly,  yours, 

BAUER  CHEMICAL  Co., 
By  T.  W.  HEHMEYER,  Resident  Manager. 

BRIEF   SUBMITTED   BY  JACOB   WEIL,   NEW  YORK   CITY. 

DECEMBER  21,  1912. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  chairman  of  the  committee  on  public  health  in  the 
board  of  aldermen  in  this  city,  New  York,  I  kindly  request  you  and 
your  honorable  body,  in  connection  with  the  chemical  schedule  in  the 


376 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  65— MEDICINAL  PREPARATIONS. 

proposed  tariff  bill,  to  put  medicinal  malt  preparations  containing  no 
alcohol  on  the  free  list.  All  medicinal  malt  preparations  that  con- 
tain no  alcohol  are  used  in  marasmus  and  atrophy  cases  in  infants. 
These  diseases  exist  principally  amongst  the  poorer  classes  through 
malnutrition.  Most  of  these  preparations  are  used  in  children's  hos- 
pitals supported  by  benevolent  and  charitable  organizations.  There- 
fore, I  ask  you  and  your  honorable  body  in  the  name  of  these  institu- 
tions not  to  tax  them  or  the  sick  infants  for  an  article  that  can  not  be 
obtained  here,  and  which  does  not  conflict  or  compete  with  any  goods 
manufactured  in  this  country. 

These  malt  preparations  containing  no  alcohol  have  been  in  use  as 
infant  food  for  about  14  years  in  the  United  States  with  such  good 
results  as  you  yourself  can  see  from  the  report  of  Dr.  W.  H.  Guufoy, 
registrar  of  the  department  of  health  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Deaths  and  rates  per  1,000  children  living  under  1  year  of  age: 


Year. 

Deaths. 

Rate. 

Year. 

Deaths. 

Rate. 

1898 

16,070 

203 

1905                              .   . 

16,522 

163 

1899 

15,381 

182 

1906        .   . 

17,188 

164* 

1900 

16,640 

192 

1907  

17,  437 

160 

1901 

15,467 

173 

1908 

16,231 

144 

1902 

15,526 

168 

1909  

15,976 

137 

1903.                 

14,413 

151 

1910  

16,212 

134 

1904 

16,  125 

164 

1911  

15,030 

120 

If  we  compare  the  rate  of  1898  with  that  of  1911,  we  obtain  a 
decrease  of  slightly  over  40  per  cent.  If  we  compare  the  rate  of  351 
per  1,000  for  the  months  of  July,  August,  and  September,  of  the  year 
1898,  with  the  rate  of  145  per  1,000  for  the  corresponding  months  of 
the  year  1911,  we  find  a  decrease  of  almost  60  per  cent. 

Now,  if  you  and  your  honorable  body  will  consider  the  mortality 
of  infants  before  these  medicinal  malt  preparations  containing  no 
alcohol  were  imported,  you  readily  can  realize  what  great  good  has 
been  accomplished  through  the  use  of  them.  And  as  they  are  mostly 
consumed  by  the  poor  and  by  charitable  institutions,  you  can  clearly 
see  what  a  true  humane  act  it  would  be  to  allow  these  medicinal  malt 
preparations  containing  no  alcohol  to  be  admitted  duty  free. 

As  I  have  stated  before,  as  I  am  chairman  of  the  committee  on 
public  health  and  a  member  of  the  committee  on  public  charities, 
besides  being  interested  in  many  charitable  institutions,  I  am  in  a  fit 
position  to  see  what  a  great  public  benefit  it  would  be.  Therefore, 
gentlemen,  I  pray  that  you  will  give  this  your  favorable  consideration. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JACOB  WEIL. 

BRIEF  OF  YAHR  &  LANGfi  DRUG  CO.,  MILWAUKEE,  WIS. 

MILWAUKEE,  Wis.,  January  30,  1913. 
Hox.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman   Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  proposed  change 
in  the  tariff  on  chemicals,  and  to  supplement  the  facts  presented 
to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  by  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works 


SCHEDULE   A.  377 

PARAGRAPH  65— MEDICINAL  PREPARATIONS. 

of  St.  Louis.  The  present  duties  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  are  not 
sufficient  to  overcome  the  lower  cost  to  foreign  manufacturers,  and 
if  these  rates  are  reduced,  the  importation  of  foreign  chemicals, 
principally  from  Germany,  which  has  been  steadily  increasing  for 
years,  will  compel  American  manufacturers  to  discontinue  the 
manufacture  of  many  articles  they  now  produce. 

We  believe  that  a  reduction  on  medicinal  chemicals  would  not 
benefit  the  ultimate  consumer,  the  sick,  as  the  cost  of  the  ingredients 
in  physicians'  prescriptions  bears  little  relation  to  the  price  charged 
for  compounding  the  same.  The  purity  of  American-made  chemicals 
we  believe  to  be  vastly  superior,  as  a  rule,  to  that  of  like  chemicals 
imported  from  abroad.  American  manufacturers  of  chemicals 
employ  a  large  number  of  chemists  and  skilled  workmen,  to  whom 
good  wages  are  paid.  A  reduction  of  the  present  duties  would 
probably  inflict  a  material  loss  not  only  on  the  manufacturer,  but 
would  cause  a  reduction  of  wages  and  throw  a  good  many  workmen 
out  of  employment. 

To  our  mind,  apparently  nothing  can  be  gained  by  a  reduction  in 
duties  on  medicinal  and  fine  chemicals,  and  we  believe  a  retention 
of  present  duties  is  both  rational  and  hi  the  general  interests  of  the 
public.  We  submit  this  statement  for  your  careful  consideration, 
believing  that  you  are  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  our  own  people, 
rather  than  to  discourage  home  manufacturers,  and  to  cause  them  a 
loss,  and  to  inflict  a  loss  (through  their  being  thrown  out  of  employ- 
ment), upon  our  own  people  also,  the  American  workers. 
Respectfully, 

YAHK  &  LANGE  DRUG  Co., 
By  L.  A.  LANGE. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  J.  W.  CROWDUS  DRUG  CO.,  DALLAS,  TEX. 

DALLAS,  TEX.,  January  81, 1913. 
The  Chairman  and  Members  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  As  large  distributors  of  medicinal  and  fine  chemicals, 
we  take  the  liberty  of  submitting  the  following  in  connection  with 
the  pending  revision  of  the  tariff: 

We  assume  that  the  object  of  the  revision  is,  first,  to  secure  revenue; 
second,  to  reduce  the  cost  of  necessities  to  the  general  public  and  ulti- 
mate consumers;  third,  to  protect  American  workmen  and,  as  far  as 
consistent,  invested  capital,  and  to  encourage  the  development  of 
American  industries. 

The  duties  paid  on  importations  of  chemicals  in  the  year  1911 
amounted  to  $834,494.  The  importation  of  medicinal  and  fine 
chemicals  has  steadily  increased  for  years,  and  we  believe  will  con- 
tinue to  increase  under  present  rates  of  duty.  We  believe  that  a 
reduction  of  the  present  rates  of  duty,  particularly  of  the  general 
clause  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  while  stimulating  importations  and 
curtailing  the  manufacture  in  this  country  to  the  detriment  of 
American  interests,  would  not  materially,  if  at  all,  increase  the 
revenue. 


378  TARIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  66— PLASTERS. 

A  reduction  of  duty  on  medicinal  chemicals  would  not  benefit  the 
ultimate  consumer,the  sick,  as  the  cost  of  the  ingredients  hi  physi- 
cians' prescriptions  bears  little  relation  to  the  price  charged  for  com- 
pounding the  same  by  the  pharmacist.  The  purity  of  medicinal 
chemicals  is  of  far  greater  importance  to  the  patient  than  any  possible 
small  advance  in  cost,  and  we  believe  the  American  manufacturers 
offer  a  greater  security  and  protection  to  the  jobbing  druggist,  phar- 
macist, physician,  and  patient  than  could  be  expected  from  foreign 
importers  or  representatives  of  foreign  manufacturers. 

American  manufacturers  of  medicinal  and  fine  chemicals  have 
large  investments  in  plants  and  employ  a  large  number  of  chemists 
and  skilled  workmen.  The  industry  hi  this  country  is  still  backward 
compared  with  foreign  countries,  notably  Germany.  A  reduction  of 
present  rates  would  probably  inflict  material  losses  on  American 
manufacturers,  cause  a  reduction  of  wages,  and  throw  many  workmen 
out  of  employment,  whereas  a  continuance  of  the  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem  rate  and  other  special  duties  would  doubtless  tend  to  further 
development,  increased  employment,  and  the  promotion  of  prosperity. 
As  apparently  nothing  can  be  gained  by  a  reduction  of  duties  on 
medicinal  and  fine  chemicals,  a  retention  of  present  duties  would 
seem  rational  and  in  the  general  interest. 

Submitting  the  above  for  your  careful  consideration,  we  are, 
Very  respectfully, 

THE  J.  W.  CROWDUS  DRUG  Co., 
GEO.  M.  WELLIAMS,  Vice  President. 

PARAGRAPH  66. 

Plasters,  healing  or  curative,  of  all  kinds,  and  court-plaster,  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PLASTERS. 

BRIEF  OF  JOHNSON  &  JOHNSON,  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J.,  ON 
PLASTERS,  ETC. 

Plasters. — Paragraph  66,  tariff  act  of  1909,  imposes  a  duty  upon 
plasters,  healing  or  curative,of  all  kinds,  including  court-plaster,  of 
25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  We  presume  this  also  covers  adhesive 
plaster,  the  use  of  which  is  very  largely  mechanical,  whether  used  in 
the  arts  or  by  the  surgeon. 

The  duty  under  former  acts  has  been  as  high  as  35  per  cent.  Under 
the  so-called  Underwood  bill — H.  R.  No.  20182,  paragraph  55— 
plasters,  healing  or  curative,  of  all  kinds,  and  court-plaster,  15  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  A  reduction  of  10  per  cent. 

By  the  Underwood  bill,  paragraph  19,  pills,  tablets,  lozenges, 
troches,  or  similar  forms  of  medicine  are  to  be  made  dutiable  at  not 
less  than  2o  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Our  contention  is  that  plasters,  pills,  tablets,  ointments,  fluid  ex- 
tracts, tinctures,  etc.,  should  bear  the  same  rate  of  duty. 

That  the  Underwood  bill,  making  this  difference,  puts  the  manu- 
facturer of  medicinal  plasters  at  an  unfair  disadvantage;  that  is 
to  say,  the  maker  of  a  belladonna  ointment,  or  belladonna  pill,  or 
belladonna  extract  would  be  protected  by  a  duty  of  25  per  cent,  but 


SCHEDULE  A.  379 

PARAGRAPH  66— PLASTERS. 

the  maker  of  belladonna  plasters  would  have  a  duty  of  only  15  per 
cent. 

It  would  simplify  matters  if  the  word  "plasters"  was  to  be  inserted 
in  paragraph  55  of  H.  R.  No.  20182,  introduced  February  15,  1912, 
or  in  similar  tariff  bills. 

There  is  no  good  reason  why  plasters  should  have  ever  been  sepa- 
rated from  other  preparations  of  the  same  character. 

In  considering  the  rate  of  duty  the  following  should  be  borne  in 
mind  : 

In  a  number  of  countries  in  introducing  plasters,  medicinal  and 
otherwise,  we  are  confronted  by  a  heavy  protective  duty.  For 
example,  Germany.  In  Germany  there  are  some  30  maKers  of 
medicinal  plasters  of  fairly  respectable  size,  and  about  100  small  and 
large.  The  duty  upon  our  own  plasters  in  Germany  ranges  from  25 
to  60  per  cent. 

By  the  Underwood  tariff  the  German  manufacturers  could  intro- 
duce their  plasters  into  the  United  States  at  15  per  cent  duty.  Our 
plasters  in  Germany  would  be  subjected  to  a  minimum  rate  of  25  per 
cent. 

The  German  manufacturer  would  also  have  an  advantage  in  the 
way  of  certain  kinds  of  raw  material  used  in  the  preparation  of  these 
articles,  and  a  great  advantage  in  the  way  of  labor. 

Hospitals. — We  understand  that  an  effort  will  be  made  to  revive 
the  movement  of  1909  whereby  medicinal  and  surgical  instruments, 
appliances,  and  apparatus  imported  by  and  for  the  use  of  hospitals 
and  other  institutions  shall  be  admitted  free. 

One  great  objection  to  this  course  is  the  fact  that  a  great  number 
of  hospitals  throughout  this  country  are  private  or  semiprivate  insti- 
tutions charging  fees  for  treatment  given.  Only  a  minor  number 
give  treatment  without  pay,  the  latter  being  municipal  or  State 
institutions  supported  from  city  or  State  funds  derived  from  the 
American  taxpayer. 

Under  the  proposed  amendment  they  would  be  able  to  import  all 
supplies  free  of  duty. 

Many  physicians  and  surgeons  obtain  their  medical  and  surgical 
supplies  for  use  in  private  practice  from  hospitals  with  which  they 
are  connected. 

Should  foreign  goods  for  hospital  use  secure  entry  free  of  duty,  this 
would  have  a  serious  effect  upon  American  industries. 

The  American  factories  devoted  to  the  preparation  of  medicinal 
and  surgical  apparatus,  utensils,  instruments,  and  preparations  have 
been  built  up  by  large  investments,  supplemented  by  devotion  to 
scientific  study,  expert  knowledge,  mechanical  and  chemical  skill,  and 
have  attained  the  nighest  development  in  the  art  of  preparing  these 
supplies. 

These  industries  are  of  great  importance  to  the  municipal,  State, 
and  Federal  governments  in  time  or  peace  and  of  utmost  importance 
in  the  tune  of  war. 

This  alone  should  urge  that  they  were  entitled  to  a  consideration. 

JOHNSON  &  JOHNSON. 

NEW  BRUNSWICK,  N.  J. 


380  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

[Telegram.] 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Being  manufacturers  of  items  in  paragraphs  66,  also  surgical  dress- 
ings, we  respectfully  protest  against  reduction  or  removal  of  present 
duty  on  medical  and  surgical  apparatus,  appliances,  utensils,  instru- 
ments, and  preparations  imported  by  or  for  hospitals  and  institutions. 
They  are  mostly  private  or  semiprivate  institutions,  are  largest  cus- 
tomers of  our  industry,  which  would  be  ruined  by  duty-free  foreign 
competition. 

SEABUBY  &  JOHNSON, 
Manufacturing  Chemists,  New  York. 

PARAGRAPH  67. 

Perfumery,  including  cologne  and  other  toilet  waters,  articles  of  per- 
fumery, whether  in  sachets  or  otherwise,  and  all  preparations  used  as  appli- 
cations to  the  hair,  mouth,  teeth,  or  skin,  such  as  cosmetics,  dentifrices, 
including  tooth  soaps,  pastes,  including  theatrical  grease  paints  and  pastes, 
pomades,  powders,  and  other  toilet  articles,  all  the  foregoing;  if  containing 
alcohol,  or  in  the  manufacture  or  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  used,  sixty 
cents  per  pound  and  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  if  not  containing  alcohol, 
or  in  the  manufacture  or  preparation  of  which  alcohol  is  not  used,  sixty 
per  centum  ad  valorem ;  floral  or  flower  waters  containing  no  alcohol,  not  spe- 
cially provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

For  perfumery,  see  also  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  109;  for  toilet  prepara- 
tions, see  also  Park  &  Tilford  et  al.,  page  67. 

PERFUMERY. 

STATEMENT  OF   THEODORE   RICKSECKER,  OF  THE  MANUFAC- 
TURING PERFUMERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  am  chairman  of  the  legislative  committee  of 
the  Manufacturing  Perfumers'  Association  of  the  United  States,  and 
represent  them. 

Gentlemen,  let  us  get  into  an  atmosphere  of  flowers  this  morning. 
We  respectfully  submit  the  following  in  behalf  of  the  Manufacturing 
Perfumers'  Association  of  the  United  States : 

This  association  embraces  a  membership  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific.  The  proposed  changes  in  our  paragraphs  are  not  for  tariff 
revision  downward,  but  for  increasing  the  revenue  by  taxing  all  our 
raw  materials  20  per  cent,  which  are  now  free,  and  have  been  for 
many  years.  This  proposed  new  tax,  apparently  unintentionally, 
shows  lack  of  proper  information  and  strikes  a  severe  blow  to  our 
industry. 

Its  depressing  influence  would  also  be  felt  by  the  auxiliary  indus- 
tries, bottle  and  box  makers,  lithographers,  etc.  This  injustice 
would  be  well-nigh  disastrous,  and  should  be  corrected  for  reasons 
below. 

In  the  formation  of  the  Wilson  bill,  in  1893,  for  revenue,  under 
President  Cleveland,  at  which  time  I  appeared  on  behalf  of  our  in- 
dustry, this  question  was  thrashed  out,  resulting  in  giving  us  free 
raw  materials  in  that  law,  which  was  agreed  to  by  members  of  both 
sides  in  the  Senate  and  House  when  they  learned  the  facts.  I  could 
name  some  of  the  most  distinguished  Democratic  Senators  we  had  in 


SCHEDULE   A.  381 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

that  day  whom  I  positively  know  voted  in  our  favor  on  this  propo- 
sition. 

So  also  in  the  tariff  of  1909,  after  the  House  had  unexpectedly 
passed  a  bill  proposing  a  duty  on  our  raw  materials ;  when  the  facts 
became  known,  the  law  retained  them  on  the  free  list,  paragraph  639. 

The  very  natural  misapprehension  is  that  these  articles  are  luxuries, 
and  should  be  taxed. 

They  are  not  luxuries  until  American  labor,  capital,  and  skill  make 
them  such,  just  as  raw  silk  is  not  a  luxury  until  manufactured,  and 
is  free  as  a  raw  material,  and  has  been  for  many  years. 

These  items  are  used  in  toilet  goods  for  teeth,  hair,  skin,  and 
mouth,  and  other  articles  of  therapeutic  value  which  have  now  grown 
into  general  use  by  our  intelligent  laboring  people  and  have  become 
household  necessities. 

They  are  our  first  raw  materials.  They  are  used  in  every  State  in 
the  Union.  Some  are  also  used  in  flavoring  extracts,  in  medicine, 
etc.,  and  by  the  48,000  druggists  in  the  United  States. 

These  raw  materials  are  not  made  in  the  United  States.  To  prove 
the  truth  of  our  position,  we  had  Dr.  True,  of  the  Plant  Industry, 
Department  of  Agriculture,  before  our  association,  with  samples  of 
distilled  oils,  at  one  of  our  recent  annual  meetings.  I  asked  him  the 
point-blank  question,  "Doctor,  is  it  now  feasible  and  possible  for  us 
to  commercially  produce  these  oils  V1  His  stations  were  in  the  South 
and  Southwest,  and  he  answered  point  blank  "No."  He  had  studied 
the  question. 

Why  single  out  our  industry  and  tax  our  raw  materials,  which  must 
be  imported  ? 

Our  industry  is  now  paying  a  revenue  tax  estimated  at  one  and  a 
half  million  dollars  a  year  on  refined  alcohol.  I  took  the  best  means 
at  my  command  to  ascertain  from  alcohol  men  the  best  estimate  I 
could  get,  one  that  would  be  fairly  true  and  square,  and  I  have  esti- 
mated that  it  would  be  between  a  million  and  a  million  and  a  half 
doUars  revenue,  and  this  alcohol  man  said,  "No;  it  is  nearer  two 
millions."  I  said,  "Would  I  be  safe  in  making  the  assertion  that  it 
is  a  million  and  a  hah*  dollars?"  He  said,  "Absolutely,  in  my 
judgment." 

To  our  knowledge  no  other  industry  contributes  so  large  a  propor- 
tion of  its  total  volume  of  business  to  the  support  of  the  Government. 

Denatured  alcohol  can  not  be  and  is  not  used  in  our  business. 

To  load  us  with  this  additional  tax  is  unfair  and  unjust  and  would 
seriously  handicap  and  blight  the  business. 

Don't  put  additional  duty  on  goods  that  pay  so  large  a  revenue 
tax. 

The  revenue  the  Government  might  receive  from  this  unprece- 
dented tax  would  be  too  small  a  price  to  throttle  a  national  industry 
which  is  a  struggling  one. 

Nearly  aU  of  our  manufacturers  are  making  very  modest  incomes. 

I  know  that  definitely  from  personal  contact  and  personal  confi- 
dences on  the  part  of  many  of  the  members  of  our  association.  I  am 
clearly  within  the  absolute  fact  when  I  make  this  statement. 

Paragraph  53  continuing  the  present  duties  on  manufactured  goods 
is  eminently  wise.  It  yields  a  fine  revenue,  although  the  increase  of 


382  TAEIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

importations  of  manufactured  perfumery  and  toilet  goods  for  1911 
was  28  per  cent  over  the  previous  year. 

To  secure  additional  revenue,  we  ask  you  to  insert  in  this  para- 
graph after  the  words  "all  the  foregoing,"  line  10,  "wholly  or  partly 
manufactured, "  which  will  yield  the  Government  double  the  revenue 
on  imported  goods  partly  manufactured. 

It  will  yield  the  Government  double  the  revenue  on  imported  goods. 
These  alcohol  goods  come  into  customs  from  abroad,  consigned  to 
agents  here,  to  complete  the  manufacture,  and  they  are  now  classified 
under  the  25  per  cent  clause,  whereas  they  should  be  classified  under 
the  60  cents  a  pound  and  50  per  cent  ad  valorem.  That  would  give 
double  the  revenue  from  this  increasing  line  of  importations. 

We  realize  this  bill  was  not  intended  to  handicap  our  industry,  but 
for  revenue,  which  object  might  also  be  defeated  hi  the  coming  year,  as 
big  supplies  would  be  cabled  for  by  importers  in  fear  of  adverse 
legislation. 

President  Elect  Wilson  has  just  written:  "American  enterprise  is 
not  free;  the  man  with  only  a  little  capital  is  finding  it  harder  to  get 
into  the  field,"  etc. 

The  large  majority  of  our  manufacturers  are  in  this  class. 

This  bill,  if  enacted,  would  make  it  still  harder  by  increasing  the 
necessary  capital  to  go  into  our  business  by  20  per  cent. 

A  20  per  cent  duty  on  our  raw  materials  would  compel  us  to  either 
debase  our  present  formulas  or  increase  the  cost  to  consumers;  either 
is  impracticable.  Our  popular  priced  goods  at  25  and  50  cents  are 
sold  at  a  minimum  profit,  are  leaders,  reaching  the  great  middle  class, 
and  fierce  competition  compels  rigid  price,  quantity,  and  value. 

A  misconception  is  in  the  minds  of  a  great  many  men,  that  these 
are  luxuries  for  the  rich  only.  The  fact  is,  one  of  the  best  markets 
in  the  United  States  for  goods  of  this  type,  for  toilet  goods,  embracing 
the  consumption  of  these  oils  and  materials,  are  the  factory  towns  of 
New  England. 

The  laborers  have  very  little  compensation  in  life  in  the  way  of 
pleasure  and  enjoyment;  and  wherever  you  go,  you  find  an  increasing 
consumption,  due  to  higher  standards  of  living,  even  amongst  the 
wage  earners.  I  have  known  of  typewriters  to  pay  the  equivalent 
of  two  days'  labor  for  a  bottle  of  perfume,  tooth  paste  or  powder, 
talcum,  and  soap,  which  is  always  perfumed  with  these  materials. 

The  cost  of  these  materials  was  never  so  high  as  now.  As  an 
example,  attar  of  rose  cost  us  $5  an  ounce  three  years  ago.  To-day 
it  costs  $15  an  ounce.  AYe  must  ask  the  same  price  for  our  goocfs 
or  else  we  lose  sales.  To  emphasize  this  restraint  of  trade,  I  may 
say  that  when  attar  of  roses,  for  instance,  jumped  to  such  fearful 
proportions,  we  put  up  the  price  of  our  rose.  Immediately  the  sales 
fell  off.  With  an  additional  20  per  cent  duty,  it  would  make  the 
cost  of  attar  of  rose  $18  per  ounce,  which  is  prohibitive.  Attar  of 
rose  must  come  from  only  one  source,  Bulgaria.  In  my  nine  trips 
to  Europe  I  have  studied  these  questions.  This  one  has  been  deter- 
mined by  the  fact  that  in  Germany,  around  Leipzig,  they  trans- 
planted the  rose  bushes  from  Bulgaria  and  tried  to  make  attar  of  rose. 
It  was  a  failure  commercially.  There  is  something  in  the  soil  and 
climate,  the  cost  of  labor,  etc..  that  would  not  allow  them  to  make  a 
competitive  article. 


SCHEDULE   A. 
PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

The  revenue  the  Government  would  receive  from  import  duty  on 
fine  oils  might  be  considerably  minimized  by  the  dishonest  importer. 

Valuable  oils  mixed  or  combined  at  a  cost  of,  say,  $20  a  pound 
might  be  invoiced  at  $3  a  pound.  The  appraisers  could  scarcely 
determine  value,  and  might  receive  60  cents  instead  of  $4,  as  was 
expected,  as  mixed  oils  are  very  difficult  to  appraise. 

I  had  an  interview  with  the  chief  appraiser  of  our  customs  in  New 
York,  and  tried  to  get  points  bearing  upon  the  classification,  the 
appraisement,  or  the  adjudication  of  the  questions  that  came  up. 

Our  entire  industry  most  respectfully,  but  most  earnestly,  protests, 
and  urges  the  return  to  the  free  list  of  the  items  named  in  paragraph 
51,  and  all  of  paragraph  54,  which  are  our  raw  materials  on  the  free 
list;  avoiding  repression  or  restraint  of  trade,  which  is  sure  to  follow 
if  a  duty  is  levied  on  them. 

Confident  that  you  will  realize  the  justice  of  our  position,  and  appre- 
ciating your  laborious  task,  and  relying  upon  your  fair  interpretation 
of  the  vital  needs  of  our  industry,  we  bespeak  your  effective  influence 
to  this  end. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  would  like  to  state  to  Mr.  Ricksecker  that,  in 
preparing  this  bill,  the  committee  left  the  duties  at  60  and  70  per  cent 
upon  the  finished  product,  because  we  considered  that  perfumery  is 
really  a  luxury,  and,  according  to  our  theories,  the  proper  subject  of 
a  high  tax ;  and  in  view  of  that  fact,  that  those  high  duties  were  left 
upon  the  finished  product,  the  committee  thought  it  wise  to  recom- 
mend a  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  tax  on  these  essential  oils  and  materials 
for  the  manufacture  of  perfume  which  were  not  grown  in  this  country, 
by  which  means  we  estimated  that  we  would  raise  one-half  a  million 
dollars'  worth  of  revenue.  We  thought  it  was  fair  to  the  manufac- 
turers that  perfume  should  bear  that  tax  in  view  of  the  high  duty 
which  has  been  left  on  their  finished  product.  It  is  entirely  a  revenue 
proposition. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes.  We  understand  that,  and  I  have  gone  into 
the  matter  and  have  classified  and  totaled  the  amount  of  revenue 
you  could  derive  from  it,  and  our  figures  are  just  a  little  short  of  that 
sum ;  but  the  reasoning  above  the  question  at  issue,  together  with  the 
fact  of  our  big  alcohol-revenue  tax,  offset  that  issue.  In  the  original 
bill  prepared  by  Mr.  Payne  they  also  took  the  same  ground  in  1909. 
When  they  saw  the  issue  in  the  House  and  Senate,  as  presented  by 
our  industry,  they  saw  its  fairness. 

Now,  it  may  be  pertinent  to  the  question  to  state  that,  at  different 
times,  the  question  of  alcohol  tax  has  come  up  in  our  industry  and 
in  the  arts,  and  in  an  interview  with  an  old  friend,  Senator  Allison, 
in  his  room,  I  said  to  him  that  "It  seems  hard  that  the  industry 
should  be  taxed  as  much  as  liquor."  He  said  to  me,  "If  you  will 
prepare  a  bill  which  will  hold  water  as  to  a  tax  on  alcohol  hi  the  arts 
and  manufactures,  I  will  do  what  I  can  to  support  it." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  thought  in  your  perfumery  you  used  a  good  deal 
of  methyl  alcohol? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  see  that  every  now  and  then  some  person  takes 
a  drink  out  of  a  bottle  of  perfume  and  is  poisoned. 


384  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes;  that  is  a  rare  thing.  I  know  of  only  one 
instance  where  a  certain  house  sold  some  toilet  water  with  denatured 
alcohol.  It  went  to  North  Dakota  and  killed  seven  Indians. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  We  have  provided  for  the  60  cents  a  pound  in 
addition  to  the  ad  valorem  duty  to  take  care  of  that  alcohol  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Well,  the  trouble  is  that  is  not  enough;  free  raw 
materials  are  imperative  for  successful  business. 

Now,  I  have  been  called  the  oldest  perfumer  in  the  United  States, 
and  I  have  studied  the  question  from  every  standpoint,  and  am  pretty 
well  tired  of  having  to  come  down  to  Washington  every  few  years  to 
defend  the  position  which  we  have  been  accorded  in  the  past  for  so 
many  years — in  the  Dingley  law,  in  the  Wilson  bill,  and  in  the  Payne 
law — from  the  opposition  on  both  sides  of  the  House.  The  Senate 
has  seen  the  justice  of  our  position. 

The  consumption  of  these  oils  is  a  part  of  civilized  life  to-day. 
Toilet  goods  are  used  liberally  even  by  the  working  people.  The 
standards  are  higher  to-day.  Eliminate  these  things,  and  you  take 
out  a  slice  of  happiness  that  we  are  all  entitled  to,  on  the  part  of  the 
girls  and  women,  who  get  very  little  else  in  the  way  of  luxuries,  except 
such  few  things  as  they  can  buy  of  this  character.  They  do  not  buy 
liquor  and  cigars  like  men  do;  but  they  do  buy  these  things.  The 
consumption  falls  not  upon  the  rich,  but  on  the  great  middle  class. 
Intelligent  laborers  are  all  consumers  of  the  goods  in  which  we  use 
these  materials. 

Mr.  HILL.  Mr.  Ricksecker,  are  you  president  of  and  represent  the 
Manufacturing  Perfumers'  Association  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  am  the  chairman  of  the  committee  and  repre- 
sent the  association. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  understand  that  you  have  no  criticism  of  this  bill, 
which  is  printed  as  a  part  of  the  tariff  handbook  here,  so  far  as  the 
duties  are  concerned,  where  they  are  continued  the  same  as  they 
were,  in  the  finished  products.  What  your  criticism  is,  is  as  to  the 
addition  of  20  per  cent  duty  on  the  noncompeting  raw  materials  which 
enter  into  the  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  not  your  association  perfectly  aware  that  this  bill, 
representing  the  true  principle  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  was  adopted 
twice  by  Congress  in  its  former  session,  and  ratified  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  people  last  November? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  That  does  not  disturb  the  soundness — 

Mr.  HILL.  You  mean  that  does  not  alter  your  views  or  mine,  but 
is  the  fact  that  it  is  clearly  before  us  that  the  Democratic  majority  in 
the  House  was  more  than  doubled;  the  Senate  was  made  Democratic; 
the  President  elect  has  approved  this  legislation  in  express  terms  con- 
cerning  one  bill,  and  that  the  country  has  overwhelmingly  indorsed  it. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  admit 

Mr.  HILL.  The  theory  and  principle 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Let  him  answer  that.  I  do  not  believe  he  would  agree 
with  you. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  theory  of  putting  a  revenue  duty  on  raw  materials, 
noncompeting. 


SCHEDULE   A.  385 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  majority  of  the  people  of  the  country  did  not  elect 
the  House  and  Senate  and  the  President,  but  the  minority  did. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  don  not  alter  my  question  at  all.  My  theory  is  that  the 
voter  intelligently  understands  what  he  is  doing,  and  that  if  he  votes 
for  a  third  party,  he  puts  the  first  party  in  power. 

Mr.  KICKSECKER.  I  shall  answer  that  by  referring  to  a  little  inci- 
dent that  occurred  on  New  Year's  Day. 

Mr.  HILL.  Your  association  was  familiar  with  the  terms  of  this  bill 
before  the  election,  was  it  not  ? 

Mi\  RICKSECKER.  I  was  going  to  answer  you  question  in  a  moment. 
I  met  one  of  our  manufacturers  in  New  York,  and  he  spoke  of  the 
hearings,  and  I  asked  him  if  he  knew  that  raw  materials  were  proposed 
to  be  taxed  20  per  cent  hereafter.  He  said  no;  he  did  not.  That 
gentleman  travels  all  over  the  country,  and  I  was  surprised  to  find 
that,  although  a  member  of  our  association,  he  did  not  know  the  fact. 
I  think  that  is  the  case  with  a  great  many.  They  are  so  absorbed  in 
their  business  that  they  do  not  watch  congressional  proceedings  as 
they  might,  and  they  rely  upon  a  few  of  us  to  take  care  of  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  But  your  association  was  before  the  Senate  after  this  bill 
had  passed  the  House  and  went  over  there  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  they  understood  it  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  that  the  association  at  least 
understood  then  that  the  duty  of  20  per  cent  was  going  on  raw 
materials  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  that  policy  of  revenue  duty  on  raw  materials  was 
the  policy  of  the  bills  generally  that  were  introduced  and  would  be 
introduced,  not  all  probably  along  that  line,  in  case  the  result  of  the 
election  was  favorable  to  them  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  There  is  where  I  found  some  of  the  members  were 
lame.  They  did  not  notice  the  bill  had  been  passed,  and  they  did  not 
take  enough  interest  to  inform  themselves. 

Mr.  HILL.  They  must  not  plead  their  own  default  now,  it  seems 
to  me. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Well,  I  am  simply  representing  them.  I  cer- 
tainly have  no  right  to  speak  for  each  one's  knowledge  of  what  has 
happened.  I  only  know  that  I  met  this  gentleman  that  I  speak  of 
on  the  street,  and  I  found  that  he,  a  manufacturer  who  has  traveled 
all  over  the  country,  and  an  intelligent  man,  did  not  know  that  we 
were  up  against  a  possible  20  per  cent  increase  of  duty  on  our  raw 
materials. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  percentage  on  the  cost  of  the  finished  product 
would  this  20  per  cent  on  the  raw  material  probably  make  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Mr.  Hill,  I  like  to  answer  all  questions  as  closely 
to  fact  as  I  possibly  can,  and  I  am  not  informed. 

Mr.  HILL.  Well,  it  would  amount  to  more  than  5  per  cent  on  the 
finished  product  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes.  In  most  instances  it  would  amount  to 
more;  perhaps  10  or  15  per  cent. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 25 


386  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

I  want  to  say  right  here  that  the  working  people,  who  get  a  few 
luxuries  in  their  lives  once  in  a  while,  will  pay  25  or  50  cents  for  a 
bottle  of  perfume  or  a  cake  of  soap,  or  a  box  of  talcum  powder,  etc., 
and  if  we  increase  our  price  to  the  retailer  he  will  have  to  increase  his 
price,  and  the  consumer  would  say,  "Why  30  cents  for  a  25-cent 
article?"  It  would  be  a  blight  on  the  retail  man's  reputation.  It 
would  be  the  same  way  if  he  charged  55  cents  for  the  50-cent  article. 
The  prices  of  some  of  these  goods  are  so  close  that  if  we  had  to  sell 
them  alone,  we  could  not  come  out  even. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  changes  in  this  bill 
from  the  Payne  law  will  take  forty-odd  million  dollars  from  the 
present  free  list,  or  that  the  free  list  of  the  Payne  bill  was  double  as 
much  as  H.  R.  20182  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  have  not  heard  the  total. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  would  like  to  make  a  part  of  my  question,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, the  exact  figures.  The  clerk  will  put  them  in  the  record  as  a 
part  of  my  question,  showing  the  difference  between  the  free  list  in 
the  two  propositions  and  the  dutiable  lists  hi  the  two  propositions. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Before  that  is  done,  I  suppose  you  ask  that  question 
with  the  understanding  that  you  acquiesce  in  the  verdict  of  the 
people  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  I  have  always  believed  that  the  people  should  rule. 
These  figures  are  taken  from  the  Democratic  report,  and  so  vouched 
for  their  correctness,  so  far  as  the  report  is  concerned. 

Mr.  JAMES.  As  a  good  patriotic  citizen  you  are  going  to  support  our 
bill? 

Mr.  HILL.  I  have  announced  my  policy. 

The  figures  referred  to  by  Mr.  HiU  are  as  follows: 

Schedule  A — Chemicals. 

Payne  bill  classification  at  Payne  rates: 

Imports,  1911 $117,  092, 655 

Dutiable 48, 869,  368 

Free 68, 223,  287 

Duties  collected 12, 609, 456 

Rate  on  all per  cent. .  10.  7 

Under  Democratic  rates  in  the  last  session  bill  and  classification  (from 
Democratic  report).  1912: 

Total  estimated  importations $122,  921,  793 

Dutiable 96,  742,  850 

Free 26, 178,  943 

Duties  to  be  collected 16, 101,  595 

"Rate  on  bill percent..  13. 1 

RESULTS. 

Finished  products  greatly  reduced. 
Raw  materials  largely  increased. 
Result,  importation  of  finished  products. 
No  revenue  from  increase  on  raw  materials. 

Revenue  must  come  from  increase  of  imported  finished  products,  which  means  a 
transfer  of  industry  or  reduction  of  wages. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  we  have  a  great  deal  of  latitude  in  these 
hearings,  gentlemen,  but  as  we  have  a  large  number  of  witnesses  this 
morning,  and  as  it  is  the  last  day,  I  would  like,  as  far  as  we  can,  to 
confine  the  questions  to  the  bill  and  not  wander  into  the  realm  of 
political  discussion.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  Kicksecker? 


SCHEDULE   A.  887 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  have  twice  in  my  commercial  life  suffered  from 
legislative  action  on  tariff  matters. 

I  started  in  as  an  importer  of  toilet  goods  and  began  a  business 
which  was  successful.  I  soon  saw  that  the  trend  was  toward  perfec- 
tion of  industries,  and  I  went  into  the  manufacture  of  toothbrushes 
in  Brooklyn.  I  started  a  factory  and  got  English  and  French  work- 
men and  made  a  success  of  it.  One  morning  in  1884  I  read  in  the 
morning  paper  that  the  duty  on  toothbrushes  was  reduced  from  40 
to  30  per  cent.  It  floored  me.  It  killed  my  industry  and  it  killed 
those  in  Newburyport,  in  Florence,  Mass.,  in  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 
and  in  different  places.  It  killed  the  toothbrush  industry,  and  it  has 
been  dead  ever  since. 

I  had  to  gird  my  loins.  I  lost  considerable  and  I  had  to  try  some- 
thing else,  so  I  went  into  this  business.  Then  in  1893  the  menace 
of  the  change  in  the  tariff — you  must  bear  in  mind  our  industry  is 
a  very  sensitive  one ;  it  is  a  regular  barometer  to  tariff  changes. 

Under  President  Cleveland's  proposed  tariff  for  revenue  only  the 
menace  to  our  industries  was  so  potent  that  I  lost  one-half  of  my 
business. 

Mr.  KITCHEN.  Dp  you  know  the  difference  between  the  tariff  under 
the  Cleveland  administration,  the  Wilson  bill,  and  the  tariff  of  the 
Payne  Act  or  the  Dingley  Act  on  your  products  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I  know  that  there  was  and  is  no  tariff  on  our 
raw  materials. 

Mr.  KITCHEN.  Do  you  know  the  difference  as  to  the  finished  prod- 
ucts? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  I 

Mr.  KITCHEN  (interposing) .  I  know  what  it  is,  but  you  said  it  killed 
you;  but  were  not  raw  materials  of  your  products  on  the  free  list 
under  Cleveland  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes;  but  they  do  not  cover  the  requirements  of 
our  industry  alone. 

Mr.  KITCHEN.  Were  not  those  same  raw  materials  on  the  free  list 
under  Cleveland  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  did  you  not  practically  have  the  very  identical 
tariff  you  have  now  ?  ' 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes,  sir;  nearly  the  same. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  then  could  the  tariff  under  Mr.  Cleveland  have 
affected  you  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  It  was  the  menace  in  the  minds  of  the  public 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  (continuing).  That  broke  up  confidence  and 
destroyed  order. 

Mr.  KITCHEN.  Then  it  was  not  the  tariff  that  affected  you,  but  this 
menace  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Just  the  fancy  of  the  people  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes,  sir.     "Menace"  is  the  word  I  used. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  of  this  perfumery  is  exported,  if  you 
know? 


388  TABIFF   TTKABTNGS. 

PABAGBAPH  67— PEBFT7MEBY. 

MF.  RICKSECKER.  I  secured  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  figures 
on  the  exports  of  perfumery,  cosmetics,  and  similar  toilet  articles  from 
the  United  States  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1912,  which  were 
$1,147,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  a  great  deal  more  than  the  imports  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  The  imports 

Mr.  KTTCHIN.  All  these  materials  have  alcohol  in  them  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  No;  the  imports  are  about  the  same. 

Mr.  KTTCHIN.  They  are  a  little  less,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  $1,064,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  for  all  kinds  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  That  is  all  kinds,  too. 

Mr,  KrrcmN.  Are  you  exporting  this  perfumery  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Somewhat  so;  yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Are  you  selling  it  cheaper  to  the  foreigners  than  you 
are  to  your  own  home  people  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  No,  sir;  not  generally. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Then  why  do  you  fear  competition,  if  you  can  ship 
perfumery  across  the  water  and  pay  the  freight  on  it  and  then  sell 
it  to  the  foreigners  at  just  the  same  price  you  are  selling  it  to  the 
Americans?  Why  do  you  fear  competition,  then? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  One  reason  is  that  we  can  now  get  a  drawback. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  must  pay  freight? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  One  reason  is  that  we  can  now  get  a  drawback 
on  our  alcohol  shipped  for  export. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  your  raw  material  is  on  the  free  list  now.  You 
do  not  get  any  drawback  now  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  But  the  alcohol  drawback  is  considerable. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Well,  you  have  the  same;  you  do  not  lose  anything 
by  that. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  We  did  not  have  an  alcohol  drawback  previously. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  had  that  all  the  time,  had  you  not  ? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  No,  sir;  we  had  to  buy  alcohol  under  the  old 
law  in  Europe. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  then  you  could  compete  with  the  foreigner. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  has  not  had  a  drawback  on  alcohol  since  the 
Dingley  bill. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Chairman.  May  I  say  that  I 
was  partly  instrumental  in  bringing  about  this  present  drawback  in 
1909. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  This  Congress  or  the  next  Congress  or  any  other 
Congress  would  have  the  same  drawback. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  We  did  not  have  it  until  this  last  bill. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  you  will  have  it;  I  think  we  can  assure  you  of 
that. 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  We  are  satisfied,  as  manufacturers,  for  the  sake 
of  the  prestige  it  gives  us  to  accept  a  less  profit  on  exporting  goods. 
It  is  an  advantage  to  our  salesmen  to  be  able  to  say  that  we  have 
sold  these  goods  in  London,  in  St.  Petersburg,  and  in  Berlin.  We 
sold  a  bill  of  goods  in  Berlin  amounting  to  $300.  A  member  of  the 
Reichstag  passed  that  store  and  noticed  it,  and  within  a  few  days 
they  voted  to  increase  the  duty  on  American  perfumery.  I  was  inter- 
viewed by  the  New  York  papers  on  the  subject,  because  the  German 


SCHEDULE  A.  389 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

consul  told  them  that  I  was  the  man  who  shipped  the  goods.  It  was 
only  $300  worth,  and  yet  they  voted  to  change  our  duty. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  you  had  this  tariff,  could  you  continue  to  ship 
in  there? 

Mr.  RIOKSEOKEB.  No;  the  German  duty  intervenes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  you  have  already  shipped  goods  under  the  same 
tariff? 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  We  had  sold  that  one  bill  of  $300. 

The  alcohol  tax  on  our  industry  is  severe,  and  we  have  been  told 
that  the  alcohol  people  could  make  it  more  so,  if  they  chose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  RickseckeH 

Mr.  RICKSECKER.  Yes,  sir. 

STATEMENT    OF   MAURICE  LfiON,  REPRESENTING  ROGER  & 
GALIETT,  NEW  YORK. 

We  believe  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent  on  toilet  and 
medicinal  soaps  and  of  40  per  cent  on  alcoholic  and  nonalcoholic  per- 
fumery shoula  be  adopted  as  part  of  the  present  revision. 

We  are  hi  the  business  of  importing  and  selling  perfumery,  alco- 
holic and  nonalcoholic,  and  soaps.  Under  the  present  rates  it  has 
been  our  experience  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  us  to 
compete  on  our  market  for  the  class  of  goods  which  goes  into  the 
homes  of  people  in  medium  circumstances.  The  existing  tariff 
compels  us  to  restrict  our  activities  to  the  kind  of  goods  which  only 
well-to-do  people  can  afford  for  the  reason  that  the  existing  tariff 
rates  make  it  impossible  for  us  to  import  and  sell  merchandise  of 
average  good  quality  at  prices  low  enough  to  be  within  the  means 
of  the  average  citizen. 

As  to  soaps,  the  present  rate  is  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  it  is 
proposed  to  make  it  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  with  a  proviso  that  it 
shall  not  amount  to  less  than  20  cents  per  pound.  The  average 
weight  of  a  cake  of  soap  being  4  ounces,  the  proposed  change 
would  make  the  duty  on  soap  not  less  than  5  cents  a  cake.  Tliis 
duty  is  prohibitive  with  respect  to  the  kind  of  soap  used  by  persons 
in  moderate  circumstances  and  also  amounts  to  a  discrimination 
against  them  as  is  shown  by  the  obvious  fact  that  a  cake  of  soap 
worth  20  cents  abroad  will  pay  on  entering  the  United  States 
8  cents,  whereas  a  cake  of  soap  selling  abroad  for  only  3  cents  would 
pay  5  cents. 

Altogether,  the  fairest  duty  is  an  ad  valorem  duty  only,  because  to 
such  duty  each  one  contributes  his  just  share  according  to  his  means. 
As  shown  by  your  records,  the  information  gathered  for  the  Finance 
Committee  of  the  Senate  states  the  value  of  the  domestic  soap  output 
to  be  over  $68,888,000,  while  on  the  other  hand,  the  value  of  toilet 
and  medicinal  soaps  imported  in  1907  is  given  at  $520,000,  that 
imported  hi  1910  at  $240,000,  and  that  imported  in  1911  at  $380,500. 
These  figures  tell  their  own  story  and  establish  beyond  dispute  not 
only  that  the  industry,  which  is  so  largely  in  the  control  of  the  Beef 
Trust  and  its  friends,  is  not  in  need  of  protection,  but  that  the  public 
on  the  other  hand  does  not  get  the  benefit  of  competition  in  the  matter 
of  prices  and  quality. 


390  TABIPF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

We  are  satisfied  that  our  competitors  who  sell  goods  manufactured 
in  this  country  make  upon  some  of  their  most  popular  grades  at  least 
300  per  cent  profit,  yet  find  ourselves  unable  to  compete  against  them 
for  those  grades  on  account  of  the  protection  they  now  receive. 

We  submit  therefore  that  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariff  should 
be  restricted  to  fixing  the  ad  valorem  duty  at  25  per  cent  only,  without 
any  fixed  minimum  valuation  such  as  has  been  proposed. 

As  to  alcoholic  perfumery,  the  present  rate  is  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 
plus  60  cents  per  pound.  This  often  involves,  in  practice,  a  quad- 
ruple tax,  namely,  50  per  cent  on  the  value  of  the  merchandise  at  the 
United  States  customhouse,  50  per  cent  for  domestic  alcoholic  tax 
in  the  country  of  manufacture,  60  cents  per  pound  on  the  liquid  con- 
tents whether  their  alcoholic  strength  is  10  per  cent  or  90  per  cent, 
and,  finally,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  the  bottles  and  stopper.  In 
many  cases  this  quadruple  duty  has  been  found  to  amount  to  about 
140  per  cent  ad  valorem,  thus  closing  the  American  market  to  any 
but  the  very  expensive  grades  which  the  rich  use  and  giving  to  do- 
mestic manufacturers  a  protection  amounting  to  virtual  prohibition 
in  the  case  of  the  grades  of  goods  used  by  the  enormous  majority  of 
consumers.  This  enables  the  domestic  manufacturers  to  sell  to  the 
American  consumer  inferior  goods  at  the  prices  for  which  high-grade 
goods  sell  abroad.  This  is  not  a  competitive  tariff;  it  amounts  prac- 
tically to  a  prohibitive  tariff. 

The  specific  duty  has  been  said  to  be  an  excise  duty  on  the  alcohol, 
but  the  fact  is  that  the  domestic  excise  duty  on  alcohol  is  equivalent 
to  28  cents  per  pound,  while  imported  alcoholic  perfumery  pays  60 
per  cent  per  pound,  no  matter  how  low  the  percentage  of  alcohol. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  interests  of  the  Treasury  and 
those  of  the  average  consumer  will  be  equally  promoted  by  having 
only  an  ad  valorem  tax  not  exceeding  40  per  cent. 

Likewise  that  duty  should  be  reckoned  on  the  liquid  and  the  bottle 
or  other  container  altogether,  which  should  be  treated  for  the  purposes 
of  duty  as  one  thing,  which  they  in  fact  are,  being  sold  as  one  thing 
and  not  otherwise.  It  is  this  piling  up  of  duties,  each  one  seemingly 
small,  that  destroys  general  competition. 

Nonalcoholic  perfumery. — The  present  rate  is  60  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
It  is  believed  that  a  reduction  of  it  to  40  per  cent  would  lead  to  a  sub- 
stantial increase  of  revenue. 

The  American  industry  is  very  large  and  flourishing  and,  as  shown 
for  instance  by  the  enormous  development  of  talcum  powder  manu- 
facture, is  plainly  not  in  need  of  any  protection.  A  reduction  in  the 
rate  of  duty  herein  asked  will  not  only  serve  to  increase  the  revenue, 
but  will  also  serve  to  protect  the  consumer  from  poor  quality  and 
high  prices. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

MAURICE  LEON, 
Representing  Roger  &  Gallet. 


SCHEDULE  A.  391 

PARAGRAPH  67  PERFUMERY. 

STATEMENT  OF  FRANCIS  R.  ARNOLD,  ON  BEHALF  OF  F.  R. 
ARNOLD  &  CO.,  IMPORTERS,  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
wish  to  refer  to  what  I  call  fancy  tailet  soaps. 

There  is  a  wide  distinction  in  certain  classes  of  soaps.  Soaps  like 
castile  soap,  which  are  traded  in  by  the  pound,  are  made  by  numerous 
manufacturers  where  there  is  a  market.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  soaps  of  that  kind  and  toilet  soaps.  Each  manufacturer 
owns  his  own  soap,  which  is  usually  wrapped,  sometimes  inclosed 
in  an  expensive  outer  wrapper  and  packed  either  in  cartons  or  in 
small  quantities,  and  it  is  difficult  to  obtain  the  correct  weights. 
There  is  always  a  variation  in  weight  of  a  number  of  single  pieces; 
therefore,  I  think  that  soaps  of  this  class  should  be  subjected  only  to 
an  ad  valorem  duty. 

A  specific  duty  weighs  more  heavily  on  the  lower  priced  articles 
than  on  the  higher  priced  articles.  Therefore  the  imposition  of  a 
specific  duty  on  such  articles  places  the  pyramid  on  its  apex;  it  puts 
the  lower  articles  at  a  higher  rate  and  the  articles  that  really  ought 
not  to  have  reduction  pay  a  lower  rate.  In  that  respect  the  Payne 
tariff  was  in  the  right  direction.  The  pyramid  was  placed  on  its 
base,  although  the  base  was  a  very  heavy  one — a  50  per  cent 
taxation. 

Under  that  tariff  we  have  been  able  to  recommence  the  importa- 
tion of  moderate-priced  soaps  intended  for  general  consumption  by 
people  of  moderate  means  who  are  entitled  to  moderate  luxuries.  I 
have  prepared  a  table,  Table  A,  which  is  annexed  to  my  brief,  giving 
the  exact  figures,  showing  that  the  imposition  of  20  cents  per  pound 
would  raise  the  duty  on  the  low-priced  soaps  set  out  in  my  table  from 
50  to  130  per  cent.  Under  the  Payne  tariff  we  have  been  able  to 
recommence  the  importation  of  the  low-priced  soaps;  but  if  you  put 
a  duty  of  130  per  cent  on  them  they  are  cut  off.  In  1 912  we  imported 
from  one  house  about  $2,700  worth  of  soap,  which  paid  a  duty  of  50 
per  cent.  That  is  bound  to  increase.  It  is  difficult  to  introduce  new 
articles  under  that  duty.  Under  a  40  per  cent  duty  the  importations 
should  be  still  larger,  and  it  would  enable  us  to  reduce  the  retail  price 
2  cents.  Under  20  cents  per  pound  these  prices  will  have  to  go  up 
25  per  cent  to  pay  the  retailer  a  profit  and  also  pay  a  moderate  profit 
to  the  importer.  Our  profits  ought  to  be  20  per  cent  at  least.  The 
expenses  due  to  the  business  are  Yl\  per  cent,  and  the  expense  of 
distributing  the  goods  in  small  quantities  is  very  heavy.  If  we  get 
7$  per  cent  out  of  it  we  are  lucky.  Our  chief  opponents,  and  I  think 
those  who  favor  the  tax  of  20  cents  a  pound  are  those  to  whom  soap 
is  a  by-product,  are  Chicago  manufacturers.  They  have  been  our 
heav}-  competitors.  As  to  alcoholic  perfumery— 

Mr.  HARRISON  (interposing).  Before  leaving  the  subject  of  soap, 
will  you  inform  the  committee  whether  the  change  in  the  wording  of 
the  existing  law  from  "fancy  and  perfumed  toilet  soap"  to  simply 
"toilet  soap"  will  change  the  character  of  soaps  imported  under  that 
head.  In  other  words,  are  there  any  toilet  soaps  that  have  not 
some  perfumery  in  them  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  think  they  would  all  go  under  the  head  of  fancy 
toilet  soaps. 


392  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  the  proposed  law,  in  regard  to  toilet  soaps,  we 
have  eliminated  the  words  fancy  or  perfumed."  Are  there  any 
toilet  soaps  which  are  not  perfumed  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  There  are  some  few  low-priced  toilet  soaps  that 
have  no  perfumery  to  speak  of. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  effect  of  this  change  would  be  to  raise  the 
duty  on  those  soaps ;  is  that  the  idea  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  To  20  cents  per  pound  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  To  40  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  have  prepared  a  table  showing  certain  soaps 
which  are  typical.  It  would  raise  the  duty  from  50  to  130  per  cent, 
which  is  virtually  a  crushing  tax  and  which  means  cutting  off  a 
source  of  revenue. 

In  regard  to  alcoholic  perfumes,  owing  to  the  heavy  specific  tax, 
it  stands  very  much  on  the  same  basis.  The  specific  duty  of  60 
cents  per  pound  means  an  increase  over  the  former  rate  of  $2,  or 
over  100  per  cent — it  is  virtu  ally  $4. 05  a  gallon,  or  double  the  amount. 
The  result  is  that  low-priced  articles,  such  as  lavenders,  colognes, 
and  dentifrices,  of  which  there  is  large  volume,  are  under  an 
enormous  tax.  I  have  left  with  the  clerk  of  the  committee  a  sample, 
which,  under  the  60  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
paid  a  tax  of  201  per  cent.  The  importation  of  these  articles  would 
be  crushed  out.  There  is  also  a  very  large  demarcation  in  alcoholic 
perfumery — preparations  intended  for  the  hair,  teeth,  and  skin; 
hair  lotions,  dentifrices,  lavenders,  and  cologne  are  not  perfumery  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  word;  not  high-priced  extracts.  I  am  in- 
formed by  one  of  my  confreres,  who  imports  chiefly  high-priced 
extracts,  that  the  rate  of  duty  is  only  56  per  cent  ad  valorem  at 
present.  I  have  an  example  of  a  very  interesting  article  which 
shows  that  the  tax  is  201  per  cent  under  the  specific  duty. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Dingley  tariff  certain  of  these  articles  paid 
only  40  per  cent  as  nonalcoholic  perfumery.  Thus  eau  de  quinine, 
which  is  largely  used  in  this  country,  paid  only  40  per  cent  until  the 
Dingley  tariff.  Under  60  cents  a  pound  the  importations  have 
entirely  ceased.  There  are  not  over  12  dozen  a  year  imported,  and 
they  arc  for  people  who  want  it  at  any  price.  I  have  prepared  a 
statement  of  importations  from  one  house,  chiefly  articles  of  that 
kind,  cologne,  lavender.  I  have  submitted  a  table,  Table  C,  which 
shows  that  the  actual  cost  of  perfumery  imported  from  Darrasse  & 
Colmant  was  81,073,  which  paid  out  $1,478.30,  or  137*  per  cent. 
With  such  a  duty  as  that  the  committee  is  closing  the-  doors  to  a 
source  of  revenue.  If  the  committee  will  adopt  a  line  of  demarca- 
tion and  state  that  those  articles  which  are  evidently  intended  only 
for  outer  application  should  como  in  as  nonalcoholic,  as  they  used 
to,  the  importation  will  be  gradually  recommenced  and  gradually 
reestablished.  The  pyramid  will  then  stand  on  its  base  and  not  on 
its  apex.  I  believe  a  great  many  of  the  articles  we  import  are 
articles  of  foolish  luxury.  I  do  not  believe  a  woman  who  pays  $6 
for  a  bottle  of  perfumery  or  two  or  three  dollars  for  a  cake  of  soap 
is  doing  the  wise  thing,  but  I  do  believe  in  this  country  that  the 
well-to-do  middle  class  who  like  a  little  luxury  should  have  the 
opportunity  to  indulge  it. 


SCHEDULE  A.  393 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  effect  of 
this  bill  which  passed  the  House  will  be  to  reduce  the  duties  on  the 
very  high  priced  perfumed  soaps  and  increase  the  duties  on  the  very 
low  priced  ones  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  You  have  the  table  before  you,  Mr.  Longworth. 
It  shows  my  exact  figures,  and  I  think  they  are  correct.  I  can  give 
you  one  article  here — I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Roper  has  laid  the 
sample  before  you  or  not. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  only  soaps  that  can  be  affected  are  toilet  soaps 
which  are  not  perfumed  soaps. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  They  are  all  perfumed  hi  a  way. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  said  that  under  the  paragraph  "Toilet  soaps 
40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  not  less  than  20  cents  per  pound,"  the 
duty  on  certain  perfumed  toilet  soaps  of  the  very  cheapest  kind 
would  be  very  largely  increased.  In  other  words,  an  increase  on  the 
low-priced  articles  and  a  decrease  on  the  high-priced  articles. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  Exactly. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  other  words,  the  minimum  provision  of  20  cents 
a  pound  would  amount  to  a  great  deal  more  than  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 
•    Mr.  ARNOLD.  Much  more — 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  what  is  called  a  "joker"  in  a  tariff  bill. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  think  the  tariff  was  made  sincerely. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  do  not  charge  these  gentlemen  with  any  such  inten- 
tions, but  I  have  been  charged  with  it  before. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  That  soap  costs  $1.89  under  the  present  tariff. 
Fifty  per  cent  would  be  about  94  cents.  I  am  speaking  of  a  soap  that 
has  been  largely  imported  for  years;  it  is  a  soap  made  by  Coudray. 
That  soap  weighs  3  pounds.  Twenty  cents  a  pound  would  be  60 
cents — 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  submitted  similar  criticisms  on  all  the 
other  classifications  of  soap  in  our  proposed  paragraph,  or  only  on 
toilet  soaps  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  Only  on  toilet  soaps. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  will  observe  that  the  duties  are  very  much 
reduced  on  all  other  kinds  of  soap. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  am  not  interested  in  any  other  kind  of  soap,  and 
therefore  I  did  not  take  the  matter  up.  Fancy  toilet  soaps  are  very 
different  articles  from  these  other  soaps,  in  the  way  they  are  handled 
and  in  the  way  they  are  put  on  the  market. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  manufacture  at  all  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  No,  sir.  Some  years  ago  we  experimented  with 
some  soap,  but  we  found  that  it  did  not  pay  us. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  this  [indicating  powder 
puff]  should  have  a  preferential  rate  over — 

Mr.  ARNOLD  (interrupting).  The  duty  is  not  very  large  on  those 
items.  They  are  little  articles. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  question  is  whether  you  think  it  should  have  a 
preferential  rate  over  other  productions  of  wool. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  That  is  used  as  a  brush  for  powder. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  purely  a  luxury  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used. 
The  average  man  does  not  use  that  wool  brush. 


394  TABIFJf   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  think  it  is  very  largely  used.  The  ladies  use  it  very 
largely. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  would  not  that  be  a  good  reason  for  making  the 
duty  higher,  on  the  real  Democratic,  Republican,  and  Progressive 
rule  of  a  tax  on  luxuries  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  should  not  object  to  a  higher  ad  valorem  duty 

Mr.  HILL  (interposing) .  I  suppose  the  ordinary  workingman  m  the 
United  States  does  not  have  much  use  for  this,  does  he  [exhibiting 
article]  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  about  that  small  one  [indicating  article]  ? 

Mr.  ARNOLD.  I  do  not  think  that  is  used  either  by  the  working- 
man.  They  are  articles  of  luxury  to  a  certain  extent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Arnold,  the  committee  has  allowed  you  20 
minutes,  if  you  have  any  other  matters  to  present. 

Mr.  AJRNOLD.  I  have  not,  unless  there  are  some  more  questions. 

NEW  YORK,  January  2, 191S. 
COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

1.  Francis  R.  Arnold,  No.  7  West  Twenty-second  Street,  New  York;  Washington 
address,  New  Willard.  • 

2.  Representing  F.  R.  Arnold  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

3.  Schedule  A,  paragraph  53,  perfumery;  schedule  A,  paragraph  70,  soaps;  schedule 
N,  paragraph  463,  dressing  combs;  schedule  K,  paragraph  397,  wool  pads. 

ADMINISTRATIVE    CLAUSES. 

4.  Attitude  as  to  tariff. — Such  revision  as  will  afford  relief  from  overtaxation  and 
such  correction  in  the  incidence  of  the  tax  as  will  insure  the  easy  execution  of  the 
law,  saving  the  time  not  only  of  the  importer  but  also  of  the  Government  employees. 

5.  Experience  of  47  years  as  a  prominent  importer  of  such  articles. 

6.  Time,  probably  half  hour  or  so.     Schedule  A,  paragraph  70,  fancy  toilet  soaps. 
First.  While  a  specific  duty  on  soaps  which  are  traded  in  by  the  pound  such  as 

castile,  is  not  objectionable,  it  would  seem  incorrect  to  apply  a  specific  duty  to  so- 
called  fancy  toilet  soaps,  which  are  ususally  wrapped,  sometimes  inclosed  in  an  ex- 
pensive outer  wrapper,  packed  either  in  cartons  of  small  quantity,  or  even  in  single 
cartons.  The  difficulty  under  these  conditions  of  ascertaining  the  correct  weight  and 
the  inevitable  variation  in  weight  of  a  number  of  single  pieces  entail  much  extra 
labor  and  differences  in  result.  The  only  fancy  toilet  soaps  imported  in  quantity  are 
made  by  well-known  manufacturers,  whose  price  lists  are  in  the  hands  of  the  custom- 
house officials,  so  that  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  actual  value  as 
the  basis  of  taxation.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  soaps  of  this  class  should  be  sub- 
jected only  to  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

Second.  It  is  evident  that  a  specific  duty  based  on  weight  must  be  a  much  lighter 
tax  on  high-priced  soaps  which  are  really  luxuries  than  on  the  medium,  and  espe- 
cially on  the  lower-priced  soaps,  which  are  suitable  for  general  consumption.  There- 
fore, the  change  in  the  proposed  tariff  from  "50  per  cent  to  40  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
but  not  less  than  20  cents  per  pound."  while  reducing  considerably  the  tax  on  high- 
priced  soaps,  would  increase  it  enormously  on  lower-priced  ones,  as  shown  in  Table  A, 
which  gives  the  value  of  certain  low  and  medium  priced  soaps  currently  imported, 
with  the  duties  at  15  cents  per  pound.  20  cents  per  pound,  and  50  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  and  showing  that  on  the  latter  soaps  a  duty  of  20  cents  per  pound  would 
substitute  for  the  present  duty  of  50  per  cent  one  of  130  per  cent. 

Third.  In  the  ''Estimated  revenues,"  prepared  for  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  the  value  of  all  imported  toilet  soaps  (including  medicinal)  is  given  for  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1000.  as  less  than  8478,000.  In  synopsis  prepared  for  the  Finance 
Committee  of  the  Senate  the  value  of  the  domestic  product  is  given  as  over  $68,888,000. 

In  the  comparison  of  the  Senate  tariff  bill  (S.  128,  H.  R,  1438,  July  13, 1909),  page  7, 
the  value  of  toilet  and  medicinal  soaps  imported  in  1907  is  given  as  $520,000. 


SCHEDULE   A. 


395 


PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMER Y. 

In  the  report  in  Schedule  A,  House  of  Representatives  Sixty -second  Congress, 
second  session,  Report  No.  326,  the  value  of  imported  toilet  soaps  in  1910  is  given  as 
only  $240,000;  in  1911,  $380,500,  this  latter  increase  being  undoubtedly  owing  to  the 
larger  amount  of  low-priced  soaps  imported.  Therefore  it  is  evident  that  no  protec- 
tive duty  is  needed. 

Fourth.  It  would  not  be  in  accordance  with  the  declared  intention  of  Congress  to 
reduce  the  burdens  of  the  present  tariff,  to  impose  upon  soaps  suitable  by  their  price 
for  popular  consumption,  an  increase  of  duty  from  50  per  cent  to  in  some  cases  130  per 
cent,  as  shown  in  Table  A. 

Fifth.  Therefore  it  would  seem  that  in  any  case  the  proviso  of  20  cents  per  pound 
should  be  omitted  from  the  proposed  duty  in  paragraph  70.  And  there  should  be 
little  doubt  that  a  reduction  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  to  35  per  cent,  the  rate  under  the 
Wilson  bill,  would  result  in  a  large  increase  in  importation  of  this  class  of  soaps.  This 
should  be  the  result  judging  from  the  writer's  experience  under  the  Payne  bill  where 
the  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  is  an  actual  reduction  on  this  class  of  soaps  from  the 
former  rate  of  15  cents  per  pound,  and  he  can  not  conceive  that  it  would  be  the  intent 
to  impose  on  this  class  of  soaps  a  duty,  in  some  instances  130  per  cent,  which  must  pre- 
vent their  importation,  because  in  spite  of  their  low  foreign  cost  the  addition  of  such  a 
crushing  tax  would  so  increase  the  cost  of  laying  them  down  as  to  prevent  their  use 
by  consumers  of  moderate  means,  which  has  been  rapidly  increasing. 
Respectfully, 

F.  R.  ARNOLD  &  Co. 

TABLE  A. 


Prices 
net  per 
dozen. 

Custom- 
house 
value. 

Weight. 

Duty 
15  cents. 

50  per 
cent  ad 
valorem. 

40  per 
cent  ad 
valorem. 

20  cents  per  pound. 

No  35     . 

Francs. 
3.00 

$0.58 

Pounds. 
2.34 

$0.35 

$0  29 

$0  232 

$0  47  =80  per  cent 

No.  226  

6.75 

1.30 

2.25 

.331 

.65 

.520 

.45  —  35  per  cent 

No.  295  

9.  CO 

1.85 

3.00 

.45 

.92i 

.740 

.  60  =32J  per  cent. 

No  336  

12.00 

2.32 

3.16 

.47J 

1.16 

.928 

.  63J—  28  per  cent 

No  333  

14.40 

2.78 

3.16 

.47* 

1.39 

1.112 

.  63i=22|  per  cent. 

Prices 
net  per 
dozen. 

Custom- 
house. 

Weight. 

15  cents 
per 
pound. 

50  per 
cent. 

40  per 
cent. 

20  cents  a  pound 
ad  valorem. 

No  305     

Ru. 
0.80 

$0.  412 

2.65 

$0.  3975 

$0.206 

$0.1648 

$0  53  —  130  per  cent 

No  304  

1.20 

.618 

4.00 

.6000 

.309 

.2472 

80  «=  130  per  cent. 

No.  303  

1.60 

.824 

5.30 

.7950 

.412 

.3296 

1.06  —129  per  cent. 

No  439  

1.20 

.618 

2.38 

.3470 

.309 

.2472 

476=  77  per  cent 

No.  452  

1.60 

.824 

2.65 

.3975 

.412 

.3296 

.53  —  65  per  cent. 

No.  523  

1.60 

.824 

3.00 

.4500 

.412 

.3296 

.60  =  73  per  cent. 

No  531  

6.00 

3.090 

2.71 

.3865 

1.545 

1.2360 

.542  —  17  per  cent 

No.  10202  

3s.  4d. 

.810 

4.875 

.7300 

.405 

.3240 

.975=120  per  cent. 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS,  BRIEF  OF  F.  R.  ARNOLD  &  Co.,  ON  PERFUMERY, 
ALCOHOLIC  AND  NONALCOHOLIC. 

F.  R.  ARNOLD  &  Co., 

New  York,  January  4,  191S. 

Report  on  Schedule  A  (Report  No.  326,  par.  53). 

The  present  duty  on  alcoholic  perfumery,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  60  cents  per 
pound,  actually  involves  in  many  cases  the  payment  of  duty  on  four  different  items: 

First,  50  per  cent  on  the  actual  cost;  second,  50  per  cent  on  alcoholic  tax  the  foreign 
manufacturer  is  obliged  to  pay  on  goods  not  exported;  third,  60  cents  per  pound  on 
the  actual  contents,  sometimes  containing  not  over  65  per  cent  alcohol;  fourth,  an  addi- 
tional 10  per  cent  ad  valorem  where  the  bottles  are  cut,  or  where  the  bottles  are  molded 
and  have  only  a  polished  stopper. 

The  result  is  a  crushing  overtaxation  on  lavenders,  colognes,  hair  washes,  articles  of 
low  price,  frequently  of  a  low  alcoholic  percentage  but  of  a  large  volume,  and  the  ulti- 
mate result  has  been  that  the  importation  of  such  has  been  either  entirely  prevented 
or  reduced  to  a  very  small  quantity. 


396  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 

Until  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  bill  alcoholic  preparations  intended  for  application 
to  the  hair,  articles  of  low  price  and  large  volume,  were  taxed  at  40  per  cent.  Since 
the  imposition  of  the  specific  duty  of  60  cents  per  pound  the  importation  has  been 
virtually  suspended,  and  that  of  similar  articles  intended  for  application  to  the  teeth 
or  skin,  as  dentifrices,  lavenders,  and  colognes,  similar  articles,  not  intended  to  be  used 
as  what  are  properly  called  perfumes,  has  been  reduced  to  a  small  quantity  which  is 
gradually  diminishing.  We  append  Table  B  to  give  striking  examples  of  this  over- 
taxation. 

Table  C,  showing  the  actual  duty  paid  on  our  importations  of  alcoholic  goods  from 
the  manufacturers,  Darrasse  &  Colmant,  consisting  entirely  of  such  goods  and  amount- 
ing to  137£  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  Canadian  tariff  imposes  a  tax  of  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  alcoholic  perfumery, 
contents  not  exceeding  4  ounces,  and  only  adds  a  specific  duty  where  the  contents  is 
greater,  $2.40  per  gallon,  plus  40  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

This  specific  duty  of  60  cents  per  pound  means  an  increase  from  the  former  rate  of 
$2  of  over  100  per  cent  ($4.05  per  gallon).  This  is  simply  overtaxation,  the  results  of 
which  are  shown  in  the  total  suspension  of  or  decrease  in  importations.  The  imposi- 
tion of  any  specific  rate,  unless  an  exceedingly  low  one,  must  overtax  the  low-priced 
articles  of  great  volume  stated  above.  It  would  seem  that  such  articles  should  be 
differentiated  from  the  extracts  which  are  actually  used  for  perfuming  the  handker- 
chief or  person,  and  tne  duty  imposed  on  such  articles  should  be  the  same  as  on  non- 
alcoholic perfumery  unless  the  duty  is  to  be  virtually  prohibitive.  In  any  case  it 
would  seem  just  that  the  duty  should  be  reduced  to  a  specific  rate  of  not  over  $2  per 
gallon  and  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  that  duty  on  the  containers  should  be  the 
same  as  that  of  the  contents.  The  increase  shown  in  importations  is  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  under  the  present  rate  of  taxation  even  low-priced  extracts  can  not 
be  imported  to  advantage  and  that  therefore  the  importations  consist  almost  entirely 
of  high-priced  extracts  on  which  the  specific  duty  virtually  amounts  to  not  over 
2^  per  cent  or  3  per  cent  in  addition  to  the  ad  valorem  duty. 

Perfumery,  nonalcoholic. — The  imports  of  this  class  of  perfumery  have  increased  very 
largely,  owing  to  the  increase  of  the  country  in  wealth  and  population,  and  because 
many  of  the  articles  are  low  priced  and  can  not  be  retailed  at  25  cents  to  40  cents  apiece, 
in  spite  of  the  heavy  rate  of  duty,  60  per  cent  ad  valorem.  It  would  seem  that  the 
ad  valorem  rate  in  all  classes  of  perfumery  should  be  the  same,  not  over  50  per  cent, 
and  that  this  reduction  in  duty  will  lead  to  increase  of  importations. 

The  important  English  and  French  manufacturers  of  alcoholic  perfumery  publish 
catalogues,  showing  clearly  the  price  for  export,  and  higher  prices  charged  the  do- 
mestic consumer  for  the  alcohol  tax.  This  addition  is  therefore  not  a  drawback 
allowed  by  the  Government,  but  simply  an  addition  to  the  export  prices,  and  should 
not  be  included  in  the  market  value,  where  the  export  price  is  clearly  shown  and  is 
open  to  all  buyers.  In  any  case,  if  the  importer  is  obliged  to  pay  an  ad  valorem 
duty  on  this  foreign  alcohol  tax,  he  should  not  be  obliged 'to  pay  a  further  specific 
duty  to  offset  the  United  States  internal  tax  on  alcohol. 

In  a  word,  under  the  present  and  proposed  tariff  on  alcoholic  perfumery,  the  higher 
the  price  of  the  foreign  article,  and  therefore  the  more  decidedly  an  article  of  luxury, 
the  lower  the  rate  of  duty.  This  is  the  reverse  of  what  should  be  demanded  under 
democratic  government. 

Schedule  "N,"  paragraph  463,  dressing  combs:  The  increase  of  the  duty  under 
the  Payne  tariff  on  horn  dressing  combs  from  30  to  50  per  cent,  and  on  celluloid  combs 
from  25  per  cent  and  60  cents  per  pound  to  30  per  cent  with  65  cents  per  pound,  re- 
spectively, will  seem  to  have  been  made  simply  in  order  to  give  more  protection  to 
hard -rub  her  combs. 

The  compound  duty  on  celluloid  combs  is  one  which  causes  great  labor  to  the  im- 
porter and  to  the  customhouse  officials,  with  continually  varying  results  as  to  cost. 
There  would  seem  no  reason  why  all  dressing  combs  should  not  be  classified  unripr  th« 
title  "Combs"  with  a  uniform  duty,  say  not  over  40  per  cent. 

Schedule  "K,"  paragraph  397,  wool  pads:  These  are  now  classified  as  manufactures 
of  wool,  value  over  70  cents  per  pound,  duty  55  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  44  cents  per 
pound.  They  are  disks  of  woolen  velours,  varying  in  diameter  from  1  inch  to  about  4 
inches,  the  weight  running  from  about  1|  pounds  per  gross  upward,  and  always  varying 
with  each  importation.  In  this  weight  is  included  in  many  cases  weight  of  the  handles, 
padding,  and  in  many  cases  wooden  handles,  weighing  more  than  the  pad  itself.  In 
use,  they  are  to  all  intents  similar  to  brushes,  being  used  as  puffs  to  apply  toilet  powder. 
There  is  therefore  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  taxed  at  the  same  rate  as  brushes 
as  the  case  with  all  powder  puffs,  not  over  40  per  cent. 

Respectfully,  R.  F.  ARNOLD  &  Co. 


SCHEDULE    A. 

PARAGRAPH  67— PERFUMERY. 
TABLE  B. 


397 


Actual 
cost  per 
dozen. 

Custom- 
house 
value. 

Added  to 
cover  for- 
eign alco- 
holic tax. 

So-called 
market 
value. 

Weight  per 
dozen. 

Total 
duty. 

Percentage 
of  total 
duty  to 
actual  cost. 

Lavender,  No.  1593  .  . 
Cologne,  No.  1496.... 

Francs. 
7.20 

0.60 

$1.39 
1.86 

Francs. 
3.  20  ($0.62) 

2.80  ($0.54) 

$2.01 
2.39 

Pounds. 
8 

3 

($2.01)  at 
60     per 
cent. 
(3  pounds) 
at  $0.60. 

($2.39)  at 
60     per 
cent.  . 
(3  pounds) 
at  $0.60. 

1  01  per  cent. 
$1.00 

1.80 

2.80 
ItS  per  cent. 
$1.19 

1.80 

2.99 

The  sale  of  both  the  above  numbers  has  decreased  to  an  insignificant  amount,  owing 
to  the  heavy  increase  in  specific  duty,  as  above. 

TABLE  C. — Importations,  1912,  Darasse  &  Colmant,  Paris. 


To  merchandise. 

Soap. 

Perfumery, 
nonalcoholic. 

Perfumery, 
alcoholic, 
actual  cost. 

Additional 
alcoholic  tax. 

Pounds, 
alcoholic. 

Rate  of  duty  

50  per  cent, 

60  per  cent, 

50  per  cent, 

50  per  cent, 

60  per  cent, 

Duty..          

$3,857. 
$1,928.50 

$2,187.    % 
$1,312.20 

$1,073. 
$536.50 

$287. 
$143.50 

pounds, 
1,330*. 
$798.30 

Actual  cost  alcoholic  perfumery,  $1,073  (137J  per  cent). 
Total  duty  alcoholic  perfumery,  $1,478.30  (137J  per  cent). 

GEORGE  BATTEN  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  REGARDING 
PERFUMERY. 

NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  January  22,  1913. 

The  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  have  noticed  the  discussions  as  presented  in  the 
newspapers  as  to  who  buys  perfumery,  and  whether  or  not  it  is  a 
luxury. 

Having  had  some  experience  in  this  direction,  we  felt  that  possibly 
it  might  be  of  interest  to  your  committee,  which  is  the  reason  why 
we  are  writing  this  letter. 

We  represent,  as  advertising  agents,  one  of  the  large  perfumers 
of  this  country,  Paul  Rieger  &  Co.,  of  San  Francisco.  Mr.  Rieger  is 
often  in  New  York  and  we  discuss  the  problem  of  selling  perfumes 
and  the  best  method  of  advertising  it  through  the  magazines  and 
public  print. 

We  notice  that  Theodore  Ricksecker,  of  New  York,  a  manufacturing 
perfumer,  appeared  before  your  committee  and  stated  that  he  regarded 
it  as  a  mistaken  notice  that  perfumery  was  a  luxury,  and  that  he 


398  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

had  known  of  working  girls  who  spent  much  of  their  wages  for  it. 
He  stated  that  perfumery  was  virtually  a  necessity  of  the  servant 
girl  as  well  as  womankind  generally. 

In  this  connection  we  wish  to  say  that  Rieger  &  Co.  manufacture 
a  perfume  of  very  good  grade,  not  cheap  perfumery,  and  that  they 
find  that  their  best  demand  for  perfume  ranging  as  high  as  $1  to 
$1.50  per  ounce  is  among  the  working  girls,  shop  girls,  stenographers, 
etc.  The  factory  district,  such  as  the  New  England  district,  is  among 
the  best  users  of  perfume  in  this  country. 

It  is  the  observation  of  Rieger  &  Co.  that  the  woman  of  the  better 
class,  the  woman  who  could  spend  money  for  luxuries,  pays  $1.50 
or  $2  for  a  bottle  of  French  perfume  once  a  year  and  hangs  on  to  that. 
Domestic  perfumes  are  almost  entirely  consumed  by  the  working 
class. 

We  thought  that  this  information  coming  from  us,  unconnected 
as  we  are  with  the  definite  making  of  perfumes,  might  be  of  interest 
to  your  committee.  We  think  that  further  investigation  would  show 
the  great  consuming  population  for  perfumery  is  the  ordinary  shop 
girl  class.  The  Rieger  advertising  at  any  rate  has  for  a  long  time 
been  directed  to  the  working  class,  and  the  fact  that  we  are  continu- 
ing to  direct  it  to  this  class  shows  that  the  results  must  come  from 
this  class.  Such  magazines  as  the  Blue  and  Green  Book,  etc.,  are  the 
class  of  mediums  we  use  to  reach  the  consuming  perfume  public. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

GEORGE  BATTEN  Co., 
F.  H.  LITTLE, 

Second   Vice  President. 

PAEAGEAPH  68. 

Santonin,  and  all  salts  thereof  containing  eighty  per  centum  or  over  of  San- 
tonin, fifty  cents  per  pound. 
For  suggested  phrase,  see  also  Park  &  Tilford  et  al.,  page  67. 

PAEAGRAPH  69. 

Castile  soap,  one  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound;  medicinal  or  medicated 
soaps,  twenty  cents  per  pound;  fancy  or  perfumed  toilet  soaps,  fifty  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  all  other  soaps  not  specially  provided  for- in  this  section, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

For  soaps,  see  also  Park  &  Tilford  et  al.,  page  67;  for  castile  soap,  see  also  Italian 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  108. 

SOAPS. 

BRIEF  OF  COLGATE  &  CO.,  SOAP  MAKERS  AND  PERFUMERS, 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 

NEW  YORK,  December  26,  1912. 
Mr.  EUGEXE  F.  KINKEAD, 

Gommittee  on  Appropriations, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  We  wish  to  thank  you  for  your  letter  of  December  20, 
offering  to  bring  before  the  proper  parties  any  statements  which  we 
may  desire  to  make  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

We  are  informed  that  the  chemical  schedule,  in  which  we  are  inter- 
ested, comes  before  the  committee  on  the  6th  and  7th  of  January. 


SCHEDULE  A.  399 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

It  is  physically  impossible  for  the  committee  to  begin  to  hear  all  the 
parties  who  will  be  present  at  Washington  at  that  time.  We,  there- 
fore, have  deemed  it  expedient  to  write  our  wishes  in  a  short  and 
compact  manner,  and  we  herewith  send  them  to  you,  trusting  that 
you  will  use  what  influence  you  can  to  see  that  they  are  carried  out 
in  the  new  tariff. 

We  do  not  ask  for  higher  protection.  All  we  desire  is  that  the 
articles  which  are  already  on  the  free  list  through  a  number  of 
successive  tariffs  remain  untouched,  for  they  are  raw  materials  in 
our  business.  Can  you  not  use  the  following  arguments  with  your 
committee  ? 

Laundry  soap  is  a  household  necessity,  and  is  used  practically  in 
every  family  in  the  United  States.  Anything  which  adds  to  its  price 
must  increase  its  cost  to  the  consumer,  and  on  that  ground  anything 
which  makes  the  raw  materials  more  expensive  ought  to  be  avoided 
by  your  committee. 

All  laundry  soaps  contain  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  following 
articles,  which  at  present  are  all  on  the  free  list: 

Palm  oil,  palm  kernel,  copra,  cottonseed  and  coconut  oils,  vege- 
table and  nut  oils,  vegetable  wax,  and  rosin. 

The  400  or  more  soap  manufacturers  in  this  country  are  a  unit  in 
desiring  that  these  articles  continue  on  the  fre'e  list.  Also,  that 
tallow,  on  which  a  duty  is  now  placed,  be  put  upon  the  free  list. 
We  do  not  know  of  any  industry  which  objects  to  placing  tallow  on 
the  free  list.  The  large  packing  houses  and  soap  manufacturers  so 
desire  it. 

As  one  of  the  largest  manufacturers  of  laundry  soap  in  this  country 
(by  all  odds,  the  largest  in  New  Jersey)  we  sincerely  hope  that  you 
may  be  able  to  assist  us  in  carrying  out  these  very  reasonable  wishes, 
for  we  do  not  ask  for  any  increase  of  duty,  but  ask  that  the  present 
free  raw  materials  continue. 

The  revenue  placed  upon  these  raw  materials  would  not  be  as  large 
as  anticipated.  If  placed  on  an  article  like  palm  oil,  it  would  prac- 
tically prevent  its  being  imported  into  this  country  to  any  large 
extent,  and  only  because  it  is  on  the  free  list  is  it  possible  to  import 
it  in  large  quantities. 

The  duty  derived  from  tallow  is  too  insignificant  to  be  considered, 
as  practically  little  or  none  comes  to  this  country.  As  cattle  become 
more  and  more  scarce,  it  will  become  a  necessity  for  us  to  import 
this  article  from  South  America  and  Australia,  and  we  sincerely  hope 
that  the  present  duty  may  be  taken  from  it. 

As  regards  perfume  and  flavoring  extracts,  we  believe  in  the 
general  principle  that  the  raw  materials  used  in  manufacturing 
should  be  allowed  to  come  in  free  of  duty,  or  at  a  considerably  lower 
rate  than  articles  manufactured  from  them.  It  is  desirable  that  the 
natural  perfuming  materials  now  on  the  free  list  in  paragraph  639 
should  remain  free,  especially  the  following  oils: 

Citronella,  cassia,  aspic  or  spike  lavender,  thyme,  lemon  grass, 
lavender,  bergamot,  and  lemon. 

Unground  clove  buds  and  stems  in  paragraph  679  should  remain 
on  the  free  list,  also  seeds  mentioned  in  paragraph  668. 

Oils  of  geranium,  rosewood,  and  lanolin,  now  assessed  25  per  cent 
under  paragraph  3,  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 


400  TABLET   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

It  is  desirable  that  all  synthetic  or  compounded  perfume  materials 
should  be  assessed  for  not  less  than  25  per  cent  duty  over  the  raw  oils 
enumerated  above. 

We  would  be  pleased  to  carry  out  any  suggestions  which  you  may 
make  in  regard  to  our  bringing  these  arguments  before  the  proper 
committee,  and  if  you  deem  it  advisable,  we  can  send  a  representa- 
tive to  Washington. 

Thanking  you  for  the  interest  you  have  taken  in  this  matter,  we 
remain, 

Yours,  very  truly,  COLGATE  &  Co. 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    IN    BEHALF    OF    LAUNDRY    SOAP 

MANUFACTURERS. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  6,  1913. 

To  the  Chairman  and  Members  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House 

of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  This  statement  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  laundry 
soap  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  representing  over  75  per 
cent  of  the  production  of  common  laundry  soaps. 

The  item  and  paragraph  concerning  which  this  brief  is  submitted 
are  Schedule  A,  paragraph  69,  item,  All  other  soaps  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  20  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

Xo  change  in  this  item  is  requested  or  desired  by  the  laundry  soap 
manufacturers.  They  do  not,  however,  object  to  the  reduction  to 
15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  was  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182,  provided 
the  raw  materials  used  by  them  are  allowed  to  remain  on  the  free 
list  and  are  not  taxed  as  was  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182.  (See  brief 
on  behalf  of  laundry  soap  manufacturers  relative  to  free  list,  dated 
January  31,  1913.) 

REASONS    FOR    RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  laundry  soap  manufacturers  are  not  opposing  a  revision  of  the 
tariff  downward. 

The  laundry  soap  business  has  been  built  up  in  a  highly  competitive 
industry  scattered  throughout  the  United  States. 

FACTS    RELATING    TO    THE    SOAP    INDUSTRY. 

Number  of  soap  factories  in  the  United  States,  according  to  United 

States  census,  is  436. 


SCHEDULE   A. 


401 


PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 


Locations:  There  are  soap  factories  in  all  sections,   and  nearly 
every  State  in  the  Union  has  one  or  more  factories,  as  follows: 


California 27 

Colorado 4 

Connecticut 14 

Delaware 1 

District  of  Columbia 1 

Georgia 3 

Illinois 34 

Indiana 15 

Iowa...                                       7 


Montana  

1 

Nebraska  

4 

Nevada  

1 

New  Hampshire  

7 

New  Jersey  

14 

New  York  

67 

Ohio  

43 

Oklahoma  

1 

Oregon  

3 

Pennsylvania  

60 

Rhode  Island  

8 

South  Carolina  

1 

Tennessee  

4 

Texas  

8 

Utah  

1 

Vermont  

2 

Virginia  

1 

Washington  

5 

Wisconsin  

16 

Kentucky 5 

Louisiana 4 

Maine 3 

Maryland 4 

Massachusetts 36 

Michigan 11 

Minnesota 5 

Mississippi 1 

Missouri 10 

CHARACTER   OF   ESTABLISHMENTS.      (OUT   OF   436.) 

Individual  ownership 146 

Firma 108 

Corporations 182 

INVESTED   CAPITAL. 

Less  than  $5,000 101 

$5,000  but  less  than  $20,000 103 

$20,000  but  less  than  $100,000 140 

$100,000  but  less  than  $1,000,000 79 

$1,000,000  and  over 13 

There  is  no  soap  trust.  There  is  no  combination  of  soap  manufac- 
turers. 

There  is  keen  competition  in  all  sections  of  the  country.  This 
competition  compels  each  manufacturer  to  give  the  largest  possible 
cake  or  the  best  possible  quality  or  the  lowest  possible  price,  or  all 
of  these;  otherwise  his  volume  of  business  can  not  be  increased  or 
even  maintained.  The  prices  to  consumers  of  the  common  and 
Jaundry  soaps  we  are  discussing  run  between  2J  cents  and  5  cents 
per  cake  or  bar. 

While  there  have  been  large  and  almost  universal  advances  in  the 
cost  of  other  essentials  of  life,  the  retail  price  of  laundry  soap  has 
shown  no  substantial  change  during  a  long  period  of  years. 

COMPARATIVE    IMPORTANCE   TO   THE    SOAP   INDUSTRY   OF   THE    COST   OF 
LABOR    AND    THE    COST    OF    RAW    MATERIALS. 

The  labor  employed  in  the  soap  factories  is  principally  unskilled. 
The  cost  of  raw  materials  is  a  more  important  item  in  the  cost  of 
soap  than  is  the  cost  of  labor.  According  to  the  figures  furnished 
by  the  Thirteenth  Qensus,  all  establishments  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  soap  paid,  during  the  year  1909,  for  both  salaries  and 
wages  the  sum  of  $11,733,000,  while  the  cost  of  raw  materials  is 
given  as  $72,179,000. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 26 


402  TARIFF    HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

The  industry  has  been  buiJt  up  relying  upon  free  raw  materials. 

These  materials  have  been  upon  the  free  list  under  all  tariffs,  and 
if  a  reduction  on  the  manufactured  article  is  contemplated  it  should 
only  be  made  upon  condition  that  they  remain  upon  the  free  list. 

This  condition  is  peculiarly  proper  in  view  of  the  fact  that  common 
laundry  soap  is  used  not  only  for  laundry  but  also  for  personal  and 
genera]  household  purposes  by  the  great  mass  of  people.  With  food 
and  shelter,  soap  is  fairly  classed  as  a  necessity. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  tariff  revison  to  increase  the  cost  of  a 
necessity  of  life,  but  on  the  contrary  to  reduce  the  cost  of  living. 
The  revision  of  the  tariff  downward  should  not  be  coupled  with  a  new 
tariff  upon  ingredients  which  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  a  necessity 
which  is  now  sold  at  a  low  price  and  manufactured  by  an  industry 
conducted  without  combination  but  competing  in  all  markets.  If 
to  raise  revenue  it  is  necessary  to  impose  a  tariff  upon  some  articles 
now  upon  the  free  list,  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  such  tariff 
should  not  be  imposed  upon  the  raw  materials  heretofore  on  the  free 
list  used  in  making  laundry  soap,  because:  (1)  It  is  a  necessary  of 
life;  (2)  it  is  sold  under  highly  competitive  conditions;  (3)  it  is  the 
product  of  an  industry  which  has  been  developed  relying  upon  free 
raw  materials;  (4)  it  is  sold  at  a  price  which  has  not  contributed  to 
the  high  cost  of  Jiving. 

At  the  proper  time  we  will  present  more  iully  the  facts  and  argu- 
ments against  the  imposition  of  a  tax  upon  the  raw  materials  now  on 
the  free  list  and  we  refer  the  committee  to  our  briefs  on  the  item  of 
tallow  in  Schedule  G,  dated  January  20,  1913,  and  on  the  items  of 
oils,  gum  resin,  etc.,  on  the  free  list  schedule,  datod  January  31,  1913, 
which  will  be  filed  with  the  committee. 

We  have  deemed  it  advisable  while  stating  our  attitude  with  respect 
to  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  laundry  soaps  to  make  it  clear  that 
such  reduction  should  not  be  coupled  with  an  imposition  of  duty 
upon  raw  materials  now  on  the  free  list  and  which  are  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  Jaundry  soaps. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

H.  W.  Brown,  of  The  Procter  &  Gamble  Co.,  chairman; 
W.  H.  Wadhams,  of  B.  T.  Babbitt,  secretary;  L.  H. 
Waltke,  of  Wm.  Waltke  &  Co.,  J.  R.  Collingwood,  of 
Pels  &  Co.:  F.  II.  Brcnnan,  of  The  N.  K.  Fail-bank 
Co.,  committee  of  National  Conference  of  Laundry  Soap 
Manufacturers. 

TELEGRAM  PRESENTED  BY  REPRESENTATIVE  LONGWORTH,  OF 

OHIO. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Before  we  adjourn  I  would  like  to  read  into  the 
record  a  telegram.  The  other  day  a  member  of  the  committee  said 
lhat  he  understood  that  the  Procter  &  Gamble  Co.,  a  large  soap- 
maniiiaeUiring  company  in  Cincinnati,  dictated  retail  prices  at 
which  soap  should  be  sold.  I  telegraphed  to  the  Procter  &  Gamble 
Co.,  asking  them  if  that  was  true,  and  received  this  telegram,  which 
I  would  like  to  have  read  into  the  record. 


SCHEDULE  A.  403 

PABAQBAPH  69— SOAPS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  be  incorporated  in  the  record,  Mr. 
Longworth. 

The  telegram  referred  to  by  Mr.  Longworth  is  as  follows: 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7,  1918. 
Hon.  NICHOLAS  LONGWORTH, 

Washington,  D.  C.: 

Replying  to  your  telegram,  we  have  before  us  only  press  reports  of  statements  made 
yesterday  in  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  We  wish  to  state  positively  that  this 
company  has  never  attempted  to  fix  the  prices  at  which  its  soaps  are  sold  by  the 
retail  dealers,  and  so  far  as  we  know  no  laundry  soap  manufacturers  ever  have  done  so. 
We  will  appreciate  it  if  you  will  present  this  denial  to  the  committee. 

THE  PROCTER  &  GAMBLE  Co. 

STATEMENT    OF  WILLIAM    H.  WADHAMS,   REPRESENTING 
LAUNDRY  SOAP  MANUFACTURERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wadhams,  you  have  15  minutes.  Give  your 
name  and  address  to  the  stenographer. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  William  H.  Wadhams,  31  Nassau  Street,  New  York 
City.  I  notice  on  the  calendar  that  I  am  stated  to  appear  for  B.  T. 
Babbitt.  That  is  correct,  but  only  in  so  far  as  B.  T.  Babbitt  is  one 
of  the  manufacturers  of  laundry  soap.  I  appear  on  behalf  of  75  per 
cent  of  the  common  laundry  soap  manufacturers  of  the  United  States. 
The  attitude  which  we  take  is  this:  We  were  notified  by  the  card 
which  was  prepared  by  the  committee  that  we  were  requested  to 
state  the  item  concerning  which  we  wished  to  be  heard  and  also  our 
recommendation.  The  item  is  Schedule  A,  paragraph  69.  We  have 
no  recommendation.  The  present  tariff  is  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
In  H.  R.  20182  it  was  proposed  to  reduce  this  tax  to  15  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  Our  trade  has  no  objection  to  such  reduction.  We  do  not 
appear  here  in  opposition  to  the  reduction  of  the  tariff,  fully  realizing 
the  pledge  which  has  been  given  to  the  people  by  the  election  to 
reduce  the  tariff,  to  revise  it  downward.  We  do,  however,  in  our 
recommendation  suggest  this  proviso:  That  there  be  no  reduction 
upon  the  manufactured  article,  unless  the  raw  materials  used  in  the 
laundry  soap  industry  remain  upon  the  free  list. 

We  appreciate  fully  the  situation  which  the  committee  finds  itself 
in,  committed  to  a  revision  downward,  with  a  large  free  list  carrying, 
perhaps — I  know  it  has  been  stated — some  53  per  cent  in  value  of 
merchandise  coming  over  our  docks;  that  this  merchandise  must  be 
looked  over;  and  in  order  to  make  up  the  necessary  revenue,  certain 
items  now  found  on  the  free  list  must  bear  the  burden  of  the  tax. 
Therefore  it  is  a  question  of  the  relative  burden.  Now,  the  laundry- 
soap  industry  has  peculiar  reason  to  appeal  to  vou — for  the  reason 
that  it  is  not  a  trust.  It  is  highly  competitive.  There  are,  according 
to  the  census,  some  436  concerns  scattered  throughout  the  Union  in 
the  several  States.  The  laundry  soap  catalogue  makes  it  six  hundred 
and  odd;  but  we  have  relied  here  entirely  upon  the  official  figures  as 
reported. 

We  have  given  a  list  of  the  States  in  which  this  business  is  con- 
ducted, and  I  think  that  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  representa- 
tives from  other  States  will  suggest  to  them  that  there  are  small 
manufacturers  of  common  laundry  soap  in  every  State  of  the  Union. 


404  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

These  laundry  soap  concerns  are  divided :  One  hundred  and  forty-six 
of  them  are  individual  manufacturers,  108  of  them  are  firms,  and  182 
of  them  are  corporations.  Their  invested  capital  ranges  from  less 
than  $5,000  to  over  $1,000,000;  and  I  have  given  the  divisioh:  One 
hundred  and  one  less  than  $5,000,  103  less  than  $20,000,  140  less 
than  $1,000,000,  and  13  over  $1,000,000.  There  is  no  one  concern 
that  is  dominant,  but  the  highest  competitive  conditions  exist  in  the 
trade. 

It  has  been  a  common  phrase  that  "cleanliness  is  next  to  godli- 
ness." It  is  also,  perhaps,  something  that  the  committee  may  take 
judicial  notice  of,  that  one  thing  that  distinguishes  our  American 
people  from  other  races  is  that  we  are  the  best  washed  people  in  the 
world.  Now,  the  soap  that  is  used  is  not  the  highly  perfumed  and 
fancy  article  imported  from  France.  The  soap  that  is  used  in  the 
household  of  the  United  States  is  common  laundry  bar  soap.  Cut  a 
piece  off  and  use  it  for  personal  use  in  washing,  use  it  for  laundering, 
use  it  from  cellar  to  attic,  for  every  purpose.  That  is  the  staple 
article.  There  are  approximately  20,000,000  families  in  the  United 
States,  and  the  experience  of  the  soap  manufacturers  shows  that  the 
average  family  uses  100  pounds  a  year.  Therefore,  there  are 
2,000,000,000  pounds  of  common  laundry  soap  consumed  in  the 
United  States.  We  think  it  fair  to  state,  under  these  circumstances 
and  in  view  of  the  standard  of  living  which  we  set  for  ourselves  and 
the  standard  of  cleanliness  which  we  require  of  our  people,  that  com- 
mon laundry  soap  may  fairly  be  classed  as  a  necessity  of  life,  coming 
next  to  food  and  shelter  and  necessary  clothing. 

Now,  what  is  proposed?  We  have  been  accorded  time  by  this 
committee  to  appear  on  the  31st,  when  the  free  list  is  taken  up,  and 
we  propose,  with  your  permission,  at  that  time  to  go  at  greater 
length  into  the  various  items  that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of 
common  laundry  soap,  which  are  and  have  been  under  all  tariffs, 
Republican  and  Democratic,  from  the  earliest  time  upon  the  free  list. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Is  that  what  is  called  Castile? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  It  is  not  what  we  call  Castile.  This  is  the  kind  oi 
soap  which  you  may  know,  perhaps,  if  it  is  used  in  your  household, 
as  Colgate's  Octagon  or  Babbitt's  Best,  or  as  one  of  the  common 
laundry  soaps  which  are  used  either  in  bars  or  cakes  of  a  large  size. 
They  are  sold  two  for  5  or  5  cents  apiece.  That  is  the  custom  of  the 
grocery  trade  which  has  been  established  and  which  can  not  very 
well  be  varied. 

Mr.  HILL.  Would  Procter  &  Gamble's  Ivory  soap  come  under  this 
heading  ? 

Mr.  WADIIAMS.  Ivory  soap  is  accepted  as  a  common  laundry  soap, 
I  think.  In  that  connection,  I  might  say  that  all  these  soaps,  includ- 
ing Procter  &  Gamble's  Ivory  soap,  have  used  these  oils  which  are 
placed  upon  the  dutiable  list  to  increase  the  quality.  The  great 
advance  in  the  art  has  been  adding  to  the  basic  tallow  an  oil.  which 
gives  a  greater  lather,  makes  the  soap  serviceable  in  hard-water 
districts,  and  has  advanced  the  art  so  that  our  soap  is  the  best  soap. 
We  produce  it  largely  by  the  admixture  of  these  oils,  making  a 
standard  of  quality.  Xow.  if  we  have  established  the  proposition, 
that  this  soap  is  a  necessity  of  life,  then  should  not  the  committee, 


SCHEDULE   A.  405 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

in  looking  over  the  list  of  articles  upon  the  free  list,  not  select  the 
entire  catalogue  of  articles  which  we  use  in  the  manufacture  of  soap 
to  bear  the  burden  of  a  tax  which  is  to  be  placed  upon  that  list  by 
reason  of  reduction  on  the  manufactured  article,  particularly  when 
this  trade  come  before  the  committee,  in  sympathy  with  its  purpose, 
and  state  that  they  have  no  objection  to  the  reduction  on  the  manu- 
factured article? 

This  is  the  situation:  At  present  there  is  a  duty  of  one-half  a  cent 
per  pound  on  tallow,  the  basis  of  the  soap.  It  is  not  mentioned  in 
H.  R.  20182,  therefore  there  is  no  reduction  upon  that,  although  it  is 
generally  conceded  that  that  has  been  gathered  up  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  who  make  and  control  the  market. 

All  the  other  items,  running  through  them,  gum,  resin,  the  oils,  coco- 
nut oil,  palm  oil,  palm-kernel  oil,  soya-bean  oil,  olive  oil  (not  edible),  all 
now  upon  the  free  list,  are  to  be  taxed  one-quarter  of  a  cent  per  pound, 
with  the  exception  of  olive  oil  (not  edible) ,  which  is  three-eighths  of  a 
cent  per  pound.  The  essential  oils,  used  to  overcome  the  odor  of 
tallow,  citronella,  rosemary,  aspic,  caraway,  thyme,  lemon  grass,  lav- 
ender, bergamot,  mace,  palma  rosa,  geranium — all  except  the  latter 
two  now  upon  the  free  list  are  all  taxed  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  under 
H.  R.  20182. 

So  that  the  basic  tallow,  the  basic  resin,  the  basic  oils,  the  common, 
cheap  perfumery  oils  to  overcome  the  tallow,  all  these  ingredients 
which  go  in  to  make  up  this  necessity  of  life,  have  been  removed  from 
the  free  list  and  a  burden  placed  upon  them. 

It  is  submitted  that  this  will  directly  affect  the  cost  of  living.  We 
are  not  here,  of  course,  holding  a  brief  for  the  people.  We  appreciate 
that  business  is  business.  This  will  disturb  our  business,  ana  the  net 
result  will  be  that,  although,  by  reason  of  conditions  in  the  grocery 
trade,  the  price  of  a  cake  of  soap  can  not  be  changed,  because  you 
can  not  charge  fractions  of  cents,  the  net  result  will  be  that  the 
size  of  the  cake  will  have  to  be  changed,  because  the  manufacturer 
could  not  manufacture  at  a  profit  under  the  burden  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  place  upon  him. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  What  per  cent  of  the  raw  material  you  have  just 
mentioned  constitutes  your  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Practically  our  entire  finished  product. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  No:  suppose  you  have  $1  as  the  cost  of  manufacture 
of  the  soap,  or  the  finished  product.  What  per  cent  of  these  articles 
that  you  have  said  have  been  put  upon  the  free  list  constitute  the 
finished  product  ? 

Mr.  \\  ADHAMS.  You  mean,  what  will  it  increase  the  cost  of  a  cake 
of  soap  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  No;  what  part  or  per  cent  of  the  finished  product  is 
the  raw  material.  You  have  some  labor,  too,  have  you  not  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  have  some  overhead  charges? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  What  part  of  these  materials,  which  you  say  have 
been  transferred  from  the  free  list  to  the  dutiable  list  by  this  pro- 
posed bill,  or  the  bill  passed  last  year — 

Mr.  WADHAMS  (interposing).  Exactly.  I  have  those  figures,  and 
have  placed  them  in  the  brief  in  this  way. 


406  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

It  appears  from  the  Thirteenth  Census  that  the  raw  materials  are 
much  the  largest  item.  For  example,  salaries  and  wages  combined 
are  shown  to  have  been,  in  the  year  1909,  $11,733,000,  whereas  the 
cost  of  raw  materials  was  $72,179,000;  in  other  words,  that  the  cost 
of  our  raw  materials  is  very  nearly  seven  tunes  the  cost  of  wages  and 
salaries. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  in  your  brief  a  full  statement  of  all  the 
materials  of  manufacture  you  use? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  have  in  the  brief,  which  we  will  submit  at  the 
hearing  on  the  31st.  This  is  merely  the  brief  with  respect  to  the 
proposed  reduction  of  duty  on  the  manufactured  article. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Does  it  also  contain  a  specific  statement  of  the 
reductions  of  duty  on  articles  in  our  bill,  or  only  those  noncom- 
petitive  products  upon  which  a  revenue  tax  is  to  be  levied  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  No;  we  give  the  comparative  duties  of  the  present 
Dill  and  H.  R.  20182  for  all  items. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Even  though  we  have  reduced  the  duty  on  raw 
materials  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  do  not  know  of  any  on  which  you  have  reduced 
the  duty,  except  the  two  most  expensive  and  highly  desirable  essential 
oils,  known  as  Palma  Rosa  and  geranium,  which  are  used  to  some 
limited  extent  where  the  duty  was  reduced  from  25  per  cent  to  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  in  which  we  recommend  they  be  placed  on 
the  free  list. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  made  a  complete  statement  of  all  your 
raw  materials  used  in  the  manufacture  01  soap  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  have.  Just  in  closing,  I  wish  to  call  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  this  general,  and  perhaps  political,  condition, 
which,  nevertheless,  seems  to  me  to  bear  upon  this  situation  in  deter- 
mining what  shall  bear  the  burden:  One  is  that  soap  is  a  necessity  of 
life.  The  second  is  that  the  industry  is  conducted  under  highly  com- 
petitive conditions.  The  third  is  that  it  has  been  built  up  in  this  coun- 
try and  developed,  relying  upon  free  raw  material  under  all  tariffs, 
Democratic  and  Republican.  The  fourth  is  that  it  is  sold  at  a  price 
which  lias  not  contributed  to  the  high  cost  of  living.  The  price  of 
soap  to  the  public  has  not  changed  during  the  last  10  years  in  any 
material  degree.  There  may  have  been  some  slight  fluctuations  to  the 
jobber  or  the  middleman,  but  the  cost  to  the  consumer  has  remained 
steady. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  amount  of  export  trade  in  soap  to-day  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  have  here,  under  date  of  January  2,  a  table  pre- 
pared by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bureau  of  Foreign 
;uid  Domestic  Commerce,  which  gives  a  comparison,  in  pounds  and 
dollars,  of  the  imports  for  consumption  and  of  the  domestic  exports. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  many  times  greater  are  the  exports  of  soap 
than  the  imports  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  For  a  period  of  six  years,  on  both  sides  of  the  sheet, 
they  have  remained  substantially  steady.  They  are  approximate, 
varying  from  §120,000  to  $53,000,  the  lowest  year,  1909,  of  imports, 
as  compared  with  $2,695,000,  exports,  of  domestic  soap. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Two  millions  what,  of  exports? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  That  is  in  dollars:  I  am  giving  dollars. 

Mr.  KITCIIIX.  Do  we  export  §2,000,000  worth  of  soap? 


SCHEDULE   A.  407 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  do. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  import  less  than  $100,000? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  common  laundry  soap.  I  am 
not  talking  about  the  fancy  soaps  or  perfumed  soaps. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  understand. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  am  not  talking  about  castile  soap,  which  is,  of 
course,  a  soap  largely  imported,  a  special  soap  made  of  olive  oil.  I 
have  attempted  to  analyze  the  figures,  to  make  the  comparison  fair. 

Mr.  DIXON.  If  the  raw  materials  are  kept  on  the  free  list,  how  about 
reducing  the  duty  on  the  finished  product? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  have  stated  that  we  have  no  objection  to  a 
reduction  of  the  duty  as  proposed. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Below  even  15  per  cent? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  It  seems  to  us  that  is  adequate. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  spoke  about  the  census  figures  a  while  ago, 
giving  the  proportion  of  raw  material? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  .Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  the  cost  of  labor.  What  about  your  business? 
You  can  tell  more  about  that  than  the  census. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  That  is  about  correct;  it  is  about  7  to  1. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Why  should  you  not  take  the  business  in  which 
you  are  engaged;  that  is,  your  own  individual  business?  Then  you 
can  tell  better  than  by  the  census  figures. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  That  gives  a  review  of  the  traffic.  Our  business,  as 
I  say,  is  about  the  same.  The  raw  materials  are  far  above  any  other 
item  of  expense.  They  are  our  greatest  item  of  expense.  They  bear 
about  that  proportion — of  7  to  1 — so  that  the  placing  of  the  burden 
on  the  raw  materials  is  a  very  serious  matter  to  the  industry. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Tell  me  what  this  castile  soap  is. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Castile  soap,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  soap  which  is 
largely  made  from  olive  oil.  I  think  Mr.  Harrison  will  be,  perhaps, 
able  to  give  you  better  figures  than  I  can  on  that.  But  it  is  produced 
largely  in  Italy,  and  although  it  is  used  in  competition  with  laundry 
soaps,  it  is  a  more  expensive  soap;  it  is  not  used  in  the  families  of  the 
poor  the  way  that  laundry  soap  is.  I  think  that  every  household 
which  can  afford  to  buy  a  variety  of  soaps  has  a  certain  amount  of 
castile  soap.  We  are  talking,  however,  or  a  household  that  has  only 
one  kind. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  the  only  soap  for  household  use  that  is 
imported  into  this  country  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  That  castile  is  the  only  kind  imported  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  your  information,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  put 
it  on  the  record,  the  value  of  castile  soap  imported  during  the  year 
1911  was  $364,200;  medical  and  medicated  soaps,  $15,663. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  For  1912  it  is  $338,000.  I  do  not  suppose  you  have 
that  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  value  of  perfumed  soaps  was  $380,472,  and 
all  other  soaps  amounted  to  $68,000.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  "all  other 
soaps"  covers  your  soap. 


408  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at,  that  very  little  of 
your  kind  of  soap  is  imported.  How  much  did  you  say  was  exported 
last  year  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  These  different  reports  seem  to  vary  slightly. 
This  is  the  official  report. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  All  kinds,  according  to  the  estimate  here. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Exported  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  appreciate  that  that  argument  would  perhaps  be 
against  me. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  just  want  to  see  whether  this  trade  report  is  right 
in  its  figures. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  notice  that  we  get  some  variation  in  the  reports, 
and  for  that  reason  I  fortified  myself  with  this  report,  which  comes 
from  the  department.  This  is  a  report  from  the  Bureau  of  Foreign 
and  Domestic  Commerce,  in  the  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  dated  January  2,  1913,  and  shows  the  figures  which  I  have 
stated.  It  is  not  contended  by  us  that  the  tariff  on  soap  should  not 
be  reduced  on  the  manufactured  article.  We  are  hi  sympathy  with 
the  general  attitude  of  this  committee  to  reduce  the  tariff  on  the 
manufactured  article,  but  our  position  is  that  in  doing  so  the  raw 
materials  should  not  bear  the  burden  of  the  new  tax,  for  the  reasons 
I  have  stated:  The  condition  of  the  trade,  the  fact  that  it  is  com- 
petitive, the  fact  that  this  is  an  article  that  is  a  necessity  of  life,  the 
fact  that  the  industry  has  been  built  up  upon  this  raw  material,  and 
the  fact  that  we  have  not  contributed  to  the  high  cost  of  living, 
because  the  price  of  our  soap  remains  the  same. 

Now,  it  seems  to  us  that,  of  all  the  industries  that  you  might  take 
up,  you  could  not  find  one  that  can  come  here  with  such  clean  hands, 
that  can  come  here  and  say,  "Do  not  put  the  burden  on  us;  we  have 
not  put  the  burden  on  the  people;  we  will  accept  a  reduction  on  pur 
manufactured  article:  but  do  not  put  the  burden  on  our  raw  materials 
which  we  use  in  this  common  soap  that  goes  into  the  homes  of  the 
poor,  and  which  is  a  necessity  under  modern  standards  of  living." 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  exports  for  1912  of  other  soaps,  except  toilet 
and  fancy  soaps,  amount  to  82,084,000.  What  I  want  to  ask  you  is 
this:  You  export  this  in  competition  with  all  other  countries,  do  you 
not,  this  industry— this  two  or  three  million  dollars?  You  export 
that  in  competition  with  all  other  countries,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  do. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  do  you  sell  it  cheaper  abroad  than  you  do  at 
home  { 

Mr.  WADIIAMS.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So,  then,  it'  these  articles  called  by  you  raw  materials 
arc  kept  on  the  free  list  that  arc  now  on  the  free  list,  you  do  not  need 
any  tarifl'  at  all,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  should  have  some  tariff,  and  it  should  not  be 
changed  all  at  once. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  ^  ou  do  not  need  it.  You  are  exporting,  in  compe- 
tition with  all  the  world,  and  selling  it  as  cheaply  abroad  as  at  home, 
and  no  cheaper.  Do  you  need  it? 


SCHEDULE    A.  409 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Perhaps  I  can  answer  by  saying  that  in  France  and 
Germany  there  is  a  tariff  on  soap;  in  England,  as  I  understand  it, 
there  is  none.  Take  the  great  house  of  Leber  Bros.  They  had  a 
factory  in  England.  They  found  they  could  not  sell  soap  here,  so  they 
came  over  here  and  opened  a  factory  in  this  country,  and  they  are 
making  soap  here  now  in  large  volume.  If  we  are  going  to  compete 
with  the  countries  of  the  world,  we,  of  course,  would  prefer  that  there 
should  be  some  tariff  upon  the  manufactured  article.  If  we  are  going 
to  have  a  sudden  change,  the  result  will  be  that  we  are  going  to  nave 
at  once  the  competition  of  all  Europe;  we  are  going  to  nave  the 
concentrated  governmental  aid  of  Germany  in  that  competition 
against  us.  Although  not  opposing  a  little  reduction — we  do  not 
know;  we  can  not  say  positively — we  fear  that  a  complete  removal 
of  the  duty  would  jeopardize  the  business. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Let  us  see  whether  it  could:  If  you  can  manufacture 
it  here,  ship  it  across  the  waters,  pay  the  freight,  ship  it  into  Germany 
and  France 

Mr.  WADKAMS  (interposing).  There  is  very  little  into  Germany? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Or  into  England,  how  in  the  name  of  common  sense 
can  they  manufacture  it  there  and  ship  it  over  here,  paying  the  freight, 
and  come  in  competition  with  you  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  The  answer  is  the  same  answer  which  has  always 
been  made. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Which  is  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Which  is.  the  tariff,  and  the  answer  is  the  difference 
in  cost  of  labor,  as  one  item.  It  is  a  smaller  item  with  us  than  with 
most  industries,  because  ours  is  unskilled  labor. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  you  do,  with  your  high-priced  labor,  undersell 
Germany,  France,  and  England,  by  exporting  this  $2,000,000  worth 
in  competition  with  them,  and  you  say  you  are  making  it  just  as 
cheaply  and  selling  there  no  cheaper  than  you  sell  to  our  people  at 
home;  and  I  believe  you  are  right  about  it.  I  believe  you  can  do  it. 
I  know  you  are  doing  it. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  do  not  deny  that  we  are  doing  it;  I  am  glad  we 
are  doing  it.  We  wish  that  every  industry  in  the  country  could  do 
the  same. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Therefore  you  do  not  need  a  tariff  to  protect  it,  if 
you  can  do  that. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  do  not  need  a  high  tariff  to  protect  it;  no. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  need  any  to  protect  it,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  You  can  not  speculate;  I  mean,  you  can  not 
change  abruptly.  For  me  to  give  an  assurance  to  this  committee 
that  we  could  continue  to  do  it  would  be  an  absurdity.  I  can  not 
tell.  Whether  or  not  the  other  countries  of  the  world,  taking  ad- 
vantage of  that  situation,  would  not  be  so  stimulated  in  their  business 
that  we  would  suffer  the  loss  of  all  our  export  trade  is  something 
that  can  not  be  stated  with  definiteness.  It  is  highly  probable  that 
it  would  occur.  I  think  it  would  be  a  dangerous  thing. 

I  understand  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  committee  not  to  take 
wholesale  action  at  once,  but  to  proceed  moderately  and  by  degrees. 

Mr.  NEEDHAM.  How  do  you  understand  that  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Well,  perhaps  I  should  not  understand  it — except 
that  I  take  it  that  this  committee  is  proceeding  in  good  faith  to  do 


410  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

what  it  can  to  readjust  the  burden  of  the  tariff  with  the  least  dis- 
turbance of  business  possible;  and  I  assume  that  they  are  working 
in  good  faith. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suggest  that  probably  the  witness  has  read  the 
bill  which  was  sent  to  the  House  last  year,  which  was  a  reasonable 
reduction. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Yes;  as  far  as  the  manufactured  goods  were  con- 
cerned; but  as  far  as  our  trade  was  concerned,  we  seriously  urge 
upon  this  committee  to  reconsider  the  disposition  of  the  duty  on  the 
raw  materials,  bearing  in  mind  the  character  of  the  industry. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Just  one  question:  Of  course,  when  you  export  the 
soap,  the  manufacturers  are  entitled  to  a  drawback  of  99  per  cent 
of  the  duty  paid  on  the  raw  material,  and  I  assume  they  do  that. 
Do  you  know  whether  or  not  they  do  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  do  not,  because  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  particular 
company  which  I  represent  does  not  export  soap  in  large  quantities. 
At  the  last  hearing  befoie  the  Senate  committee  I  spoke  from  my 
personal  knowledge  of  my  own  company,  and  said  there  was  very 
little  exported.  Since  then  I  have  looked  up  the  figures.  I  find,  and 
other  members  of  the  industry  have  called  my  attention  to  the  fact, 
that  I  was  incorrect  in  my  statement. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  assumption  is  that  they  do  take  advantage  of 
that,  to  put  them  on  more  of  an  equality,  on  raw  materials,  with 
nations  manufacturing  abroad — that  they  do  get  this  drawback. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Of  course,  the  raw  materials  are  now  upon  the  free 
list,  Mr.  Payne. 

Air.  PAYNE.  All  of  them? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Oh,  yes;  practically  all,  except  tallow. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  a  different  thing,  then.  I  thought  some  of 
them  were  dutiable. 

Mr.  HILL.  Does  your  concern  fix  the  prices  at  which  the  goods  shall 
be  retailed  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Each  individual  manufacturer  does.  There  is  no 
association  of  soap  manufacturers  at  ah1. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then,  why  do  you  want  a  tariff  at  all?  Does  not  Procter 
&  Gamble  fix  the  price  at  which  Ivory  soap  shall  be  retailed  to  the 
consumer  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  They  make  it  and  they  fix  the  price. 

Mr.  HILL.  Does  not  Babbitt  do  the  same  thing? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.   Yes. 

Mr.  11  ILL.  Why  do  you  want  any  tariff  at  all,  then,  if  you  abso- 
lutely control  the  price,  from  the  manufacturer  down  to  the  ultimate 
consumer "'. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Because  this  is  a  highly  competitive  business,  and 
unless  we  keep  up  the  standard  and  keep  the  price  right  we  are  going 
immediately  to  have  competition  at  home  and  abroad. 

Mr.  II  ILL.  You  have  met  the  competition  and  fixed  your  own 
prices  clear  through  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  That  price  has  never  been  changed  since  B.  T. 
Babbitt,  who  was  the  pioneer  soap  manufacturer,  started  out. 
Everybody  knows  it  is  a  fixed  thing.  You  go  to  a  grocery  store  and 
you  know  what  you  are  going  to  pay  for  a  bar  of  soap. 


SCHEDULE   A.  411 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  see  any  consistency  between  a  manufacturer 
making  an  article,  fixing  the  price  at  which  it  shall  be  sold,  eliminating 
it  from  competition,  and  then  coming  before  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  and  asking  for  a  protective  duty  on  the  article?  Do 
you  see  any  consistency  in  those  two  things  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  My  less  experience  than  yours  does  not  enable  me 
to  get  your  question. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  have  had  no  experience  in  the  soap  business,  but  I 
can  see  inconsistencies. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  What  is  the  question  ?  I  did  not  get  the  question. 
I  would  like  to  answer  the  question  if  I  can  understand  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  asked  you  whether  there  is  any  consistency  in  a  man- 
ufacturer making  an  article,  fixing  the  price  at  which  it  is  wholesaled, 
fixing  the  price  at  which  it  is  retailed,  fixing  the  price  which  the 
consumer  shall  pay  for  it,  and  then  coming  before  a  congressional 
committee  and  asking  for  protection  on  the  article. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  We  do  not  fix  the  price  in  the  sense  in  which  you 
use  the  word,  where  the  manufacturer  fixes  an  arbitrary  price.  The 
price  is  fixed  by  the  trade,  by  what  the  traffic  will  bear.  We  have 
to  take  the  price  we  can  get  for  it.  We  do  not  fix  the  price  in  the 
sense  you  used  the  word.  The  sense  you  use  is  fixing  the  price  where 
there  is  a  monopoly.  This  is  a  highly  competitive  business.  There 
is  not  even  an  association  in  our  business. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  a  wholesale  grocer  in  New  York  City  sell  Babbitt 
soap  at  any  price  he  pleases  ?  Can  the  retailer,  to  whom  he  sells  it, 
sell  at  any  price  he  pleases  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Absolutely;  he  can  sell  it  at  any  price. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  he  get  another  invoice  if  he  does  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  does  it  all  the  time.  If  you  will 
go  into  a  department  store  every  once  in  a  while  you  will  see,  as  an 
advertising  feature,  in  order  to  boom  their  business,  a  sale  of  Bab- 
bitt's soap  at  seven  cakes  for  a  quarter.  That  is  done  right  along. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  they  can  make  any  price  they  please  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  They  can  make  any  price  they  please. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  without  conflict  with  the  contract  under  which  they 
bought  it  from  the  manufacturer  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  There  is  no  contract.  We  take  orders  and  sell 
goods. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  that  true  of  Procter  &  Gamble  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  As  far  as  I  know,  it  is. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  far  as  I  knowr  it  is  not. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  There  is  not  an}7  business  in  which  there  is  more, 
open,  free,  and  honest  competition  than  there  is  in  this  laundry- 
soap  business ;  absolutely  none. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Brother  Hill  had  these  same  facts  before  him  when 
he  helped  write  the  Payne  bill,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  May  it  please  the  committee,  I  can  not  act  as  an 
arbitrator. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  he  gave  you  these  high-protection  duties  under 
the  same  conditions  which  he  is  now  complaining  about,  did  he  not? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  am  here,  not  for  the  purpose  of  in  any  way 
taking  part  hi  any  political  difference  as  to  method. 


412  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

Mr.  HILL.  Nor  am  I. 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  I  am  here  for  the  purpose  of  answering  such 
questions  as  I  can  and,  I  think,  showing  that  in  this  business  of 
common  laundry  soap  although  not  objecting  to  a  reduction  of  the 
tariff,  it  should  be  reduced  without  taking  the  raw  materials  we 
use  off  the  free  list  and  putting  the  burden  of  bearing  the  new  tax, 
which  must  be  raised  for  revenue,  upon  a  necessity  of  life,  by 
puttingit  upon  the  free  raw  materials  used  in  this  business. 

Mr.  PETERS.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  raw  materials  are 
now  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  WADHAMS.  All  raw  materials  are  now  on  the  free  list,  except 
tallow,  upon  which  there  is  a  duty  of  one-half  cent  a  pound.  There 
is  a  separate  brief  filed  on  the  subject  of  tallow,  which  comes  up 
under  Schedule  G,  and  in  order  to  keep  the  various  things  in  the 
classes  in  which  the  hearings  are  held,  we  put  the  tallow  item  under 
Schedule  G  on  that  brief. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  CM  January  6,  1913. 
To  the  Chairman  and  Members  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  This  statement  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  laundry  soap  manufacturers 
of  the  United  States  representing  over  75  per  cent  of  the  production  of  common  laundry 
soaps. 

The  item  and  paragraph  concerning  which  this  brief  is  submitted  are:  Schedule  A, 
paragraph  69,  item  "All  other  soaps  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem." 

No  change  in  this  item  is  requested  or  desired  by  the  laundry  soap  manufacturers. 
They  do  not,  however,  object  to  the  reduction  to  15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  was  pro- 
posed in  H.  R.  20182,  provided  the  raw  materials  used  by  them  are  allowed  to  remain 
on  the  free  list  and  are  not  taxed,  as  was  proposed  in  H.  R.  20182.  (See  brief  on 
behalt  of  laundry  soap  manufacturers  relative  to  free  list,  dated  Jan.  31,  1913.) 

REASONS    FOR    RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  laundry  soap  manufacturers  are  not  opposing  a  revision  of  the  tariff  downward. 
The  laundry  soap  business  has  been   built  up  in   a  highly  competitive  industry 
scattered  throughout  the  United  States. 

FACTS    RELATING    TO    THE    SOAP   INDUSTRY. 

Number  of  soap  factories  in  the  United  States,  according  to  the  United  States 
census,  is  43(J. 

Locations:  There  are  suap  factories  in  all  sections,  and  nearly  every  State  in  the 
Union  has  one  or  more  factories,  as  follows: 

California 27     Minnesota 5 

Colorado 4     Mississippi 1 

Connecticut 14      Missoun 10 

Delaware 1      Montana 1 

District  of  Columbia 1  :  Nebraska 4 

Georgia 3      Nevada ".'.'.'.  I 

Illinois 34     New  Hampshire 7 

Indiana.. 15      New  Jersey 14 

Iowa.. 7     New  York 67 

Kansas 4     Ohio 43 

Kentucky 5      Oklahoma 1 

Louisiana 4      Oregon. .  3 

Maine 3      Pennsylvania...  60 

Maryland 4      Rhode  Island 8 

Massachusetts 36  .  South  Carolina 1 

Michigan 11  i  Tennessee 4 


SCHEDULE   A. 


413 


PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 


Texas — 

Utah 

Vermont. 


Virginia 

Washington . 
Wisconsin.. 


1 

5 

16 


Character  of  establishments  (out  of  436). 


Individual  ownership 146 

Firms 108 

Corporations : 182 

Invested  capital. 

Less  than  $5,000 101 

$5,000  but  less  than  $20,000 103 

$20,000  but  less  than  $100,000 140 

$100,000  but  less  than  $1,000,000 79 

$1,000,000  and  over 13 

There  is  no  soap  trust.    There  is  no  combination  of  soap  manufacturers. 

There  is  keen  competition  in  all  sections  of  the  country.  This  competition  com- 
pels each  manufacturer  to  give  the  largest  possible  cake  or  the  best  possible  quality 
or  the  lowest  possible  price  or  all  of  these;  otherwise  his  volume  of  business  can  not 
be  increased  or  even  maintained.  The  prices  to  consumers  of  the  common  and  laun- 
dry soaps  we  are  discussing  run  between  2$  and  5  cents  per  cake  or  bar. 

While  there  have  been  large  and  almost  universal  advances  in  the  cost  of  other  essen- 
tials of  life,  the  retail  price  of  laundry  soap  has  shown  no  substantial  change  during  a 
long  period  of  years. 

COMPARATIVE   IMPORTANCE   OF  THE    SOAP   INDUSTRY  OF  THE   COST   OF  LABOR   AND  THE 

COST   OF   RAW   MATERIALS. 

The  labor  employed  in  the  soap  factories  is  principally  unskilled.  The  cost  of 
raw  materials  is  a  more  important  item  in  the  cost  of  soap  than  is  the  cost  of  labor. 
According  to  the  figures  furnished  by  the  Thirteenth  Census,  all  establishments 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  soap  paid  during  the  year  1909,  for  both  salaries  and 
wages,  the  sum  of  $11,733,000,  while  the  ccst  of  raw  materials  is  given  as  $72,179,000. 

The  industry  has  been  built  up  relying  upon  free  raw  materials. 

These  materials  have  been  upon  the  free  list  under  all  tariffs,  aad  if  a  reduction  on 
the  manufactured  article  is  contemplated  it  should  only  be  made  upon  condition 
that  they  remain  upon  the  free  list.  > 

This  condition  is  peculiarly  proper  in  view  of  the  fact  that  common  laundry  soap 
is  used  not  only  for  laundry  but  also  for  personal  and  general  household  purposes  by 
the  great  mass  of  people.  \Vith  food  and  shelter,  soap  is  fairly  classed  as  a  necessity. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  tariff  revision  to  increase  the  cost  of  a  necessity  of  life, 
but  on  the  contrary  to  reduce  the  cost  of  living.  The  revision  of  the  tariff  downward 
should  not  be  coupled  with  a  new  tariff  upon  ingredients  which  enter  into  the  manufac- 
ture of  a  necessity  which  is  now  sold  at  a  low  price  and  manufactured  by  an  industry 
conducted  without  combination  but  competing  in  all  markets.  If  to  raise  revenue 
it  is  necessary  to  impose  a  tariff  upon  some  articles  now  upon  the  free  list,  it  is  respect- 
fully submitted  that  such  tariff  should  not  be  imposed  upon  the  raw  materials  hereto- 
fore on  the  free  list  used  in  making  laundry  soap,  because: 

First.  It  is  a  necessary  of  life. 

Second.  It  is  sold  under  highly  competitive  conditions. 

Third .  It  is  the  product  of  an  industry  which  has  been  developed  relying  upon  free 
raw  materials. 

Fourth.  It  is  sold  at  a  price  which  has  not  contributed  to  the  high  cost  of  living. 

At  the  proper  time  we  will  present  more  fully  the  facts  and  arguments  against  the 
imposition  of  a  tax  upon  the  raw  materials  now  on  the  free  list,  and  we  refer  the  com- 
mittee to  our  briefs  on  the  item  of  tallow  in  Schedule  G,  dated  January  20,  1913,  and 
on  the  items  of  oils,  gum  resin,  etc-.,  on  the  free  list  schedule,  dated  January  31,  1913, 
which  will  be  filed  with  the  committee. 

We  have  deemed  it  advisable  while  stating  our  attitude  with  respect  to  a  reduction 
of  the  tariff  on  laundry  soaps  to  make  it  clear  that  such  reduction  should  not  be  coupled 


414  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  69— SOAPS. 

with  an  imposition  of  duty  upon  raw  materials  now  on  the  free  list  and  which  are  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  laundry  soaps. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

H.  W.  BROWN,  Chairman 

(Of  the  Procter  &  Gamble  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;, 
W.  H.  WADHAMS,  Secretary 

(Of  B.  T.  Babbitt), 
L.  H.  WALTKE 
(Of  Wm.  Waltke  &  Co.), 

J.  B.  COLLINGWOOD 

(Of  Fels  &  Co.), 
F.  H.  BRENNAN 

(Of  the  N.  K.  Fairbank  Co.), 
Committee  of  National  Conference  of  Laundry  Soap  Manufacturers. 

TELEGRAM  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  A.  G.  ALLEN. 

Mr.  Allen  presented  the  following  telegram,  and  asked  that  it  be 
inserted  in  the  record: 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  January  7,  191S. 
Hon.  ALFRED  G.  ALLEN, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

We  have  before  us  only  press  reports  of  statement  made  yesterday  in  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means.  We  wish  to  state  positively  that  this  company  has  never  attempted 
to  fix  the  prices  at  which  its  soaps  are  sold  by  the  retail  dealers,  and  so  far  as  we  know 
no  laundry  soap  manufacturer  has  done  so.  In  response  to  telegram  from  Mr.  Long- 
worth,  have  also  wired  him  as  above.  Will  appreciate  effort  on  your  part  to  correct 
wrong  impression. 

THE  PROCTER  &  GAMBLE  Co. 

LOCKWOOD,  BRACKETT    &    CO.,  NEW    YORK,    N.    Y.,    WRITE 
CONCERNING    CASTILE    SOAP. 

NEW  YORK  CITY,  January  28,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD. 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  With  reference  to  proposed  revised  tariff,  the  alteration 
in  duty  on  castile  soap,  at  present  1J  cents  per  pound,  proposed 
change  to  read  "15  per  cent  ad  valorem."  This  change  means  a  flat 
increase  in  duty,  particularly  on  the  better  grades. 

We  respectfully  petition  you  not  allow  this  change  to  be  made,  and 
give  the  following  reasons: 

The  change  is  uncalled  for.  Castile  soap  manufactured  in  this 
country  sells  regularly  with  satisfactory  profits  for  a  much  lower  price 
than  imported  castile  soap.  Therefore  the  domestic  soap  needs  no 
additional  protection.  The  present  duty  is  ample  and  the  proposed 
increase  amounts  to  undue  protection. 

At  the  same  time  may  we  call  your  attention  to  the  proposed  de- 
crease in  the  duty  on  olive  oil.  which  is  the  chief  article  entering  into 
the  manufacture  of  castile  soap,  amounting  to  a  still  further  benefit  to 
the  manufacturers  of  castile  soap  in  this  country. 

Imported  castile  soap  is  an  everyday  article  of  use  in  most  of  the 
homes  of  this  country.  It  is  therefore  a  common  necessity  and  not  a 
luxury.  The  advance4  would  have  to  be  borne  by  the  consuming  pub- 
lic and  explanation  rendered  in  every  drug,  grocery,  and  department 


SCHEDULE   A.  415 

PARAGRAPH  69-  SOAPS. 

store  that  this  Congress  had  advanced  the  duty  when  the  whole  coun- 
try has  been  looking  for  downward  revision. 

If  it  is  desired  to  increase  the  total  revenue  through  this  proposed 
increase,  that  object  would  fail  utterly,  because  the  aggregate  import 
of  castile  soap  would  decidedly  decrease,  resulting  in  considerably 
decreased  total  revenue. 

A  large  sum  has  been  paid  to  this  Government  each  year  by  im- 
porters of  castile  soap.  Imported  castile  soap  is  sold  so  closely  by 
the  importers  that  the  proposed  increase  will  be  a  decided  hardship. 
The  consumer  is  paying  enough  to-day  for  imported  castile  soap, 
which  is  desired  because  of  its  peculiar  qualities  not  existent  in  domes- 
tic goods.  The  increase  would  drive  the  consumer  to  put  up  with 
something  he  or  she  does  not  want. 

Interests  controlling  the  larger  soap  manufacturing  plants  of  this 
country  need  absolutely  no  additional  protection,  and  those  interests 
are  the  only  interests  that  would  be  benefited.  This  duty  has  not 
been  disturbed  for  many  years.  Very  few  know  this  time  an  increase 
is  proposed.  The  advance  would  meet  with  a  clear  disapproval  in 
every  part  of  the  country. 

We  wish  to  most  seriously  bring  this  to  your  attention  and  respect- 
fully ask  that  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariff  be  withdrawn  and  that 
the  present  duty  of  1J  cents  per  pound  continue  as  in  the  past. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

LOCKWOOD,  BRACKETT  &  Co. 

PARAGRAPH  70. 

Bicarbonate  of  soda,  or  supercarbonate  of  soda,  or  saleratus,  and  other 
alkalies  containing  fifty  per  centum  or  more  of  bicarbonate  of  soda,  five-eighths 
of  one  cent  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH  71. 

Bichromate  and  chromate  of  soda,  one  and  three-fourths  cents  per  pound. 
See  Natural  Products  Refining  Co.,  page  359. 

PARAGRAPH  72. 

Crystal  carbonate  of  soda,  or  concentrated  soda  crystals,  or  monohydrate, 
or  sesquicarbonate  of  soda,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound;  chlorate  of 
soda,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

PARAGRAPH  73. 

Hydrate  of  or  caustic  soda,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound;  nitrate  of  soda 
and  yellow  prussiate  of  soda,  two  cents  per  pound;  sulphide  of  soda  con- 
taining not  more  than  thirty-five  per  centum  of  sulphide  of  soda,  and  hypo- 
sulphite of  soda,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  sulphide  of  soda, 
concentrated,  or  containing  more  than  thirty-five  per  centum  of  sulphide  of 
soda,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
For  hyposulphite  of  soda,  etc.,  see  Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  page  326. 

PARAGRAPH  74. 

Sal  soda,  or  soda  crystals,  not  concentrated,  one-sixth  of  one  cent  per 
pound. 


416  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGBAPH  75— ARSENIATE  OF  SODA. 

PARAGRAPH  75. 

Soda  ash,  one-fourth  of  one  cent  per  pound;  arseniate  of  soda,  one  cent 
per  pound. 

ARSENIATE   OF   SODA. 

BEIEF  OF  W.  H.  BOWKER,  BOSTON,   MASS.,  CONCERNING 
ARSENIATE  OF  SODA. 

To  the  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  I  am  aware  that  hearings  on  Schedule  A  have  been 
closed,  but  I  hope  it  is  not  too  late  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  two  items  in  the  schedule  which  are  of  vital  importance  in 
the  preparation  of  insecticides  and  fungicides  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses by  farmers  and  manufacturers.  They  are  blue  vitriol  and 
arseniate  of  soda  (pars.  81  and  71,  H.  R.  20182). 

You  are  doubtless  aware  that  the  production  and  sale  of  insecti- 
cides and  fungicides  for  the  protection  of  crops,  as  well  as  for  the 
protection  of  shade  trees  and  shrubs,  has  enormously  increased  in 
this  country  in  the  past  10  years.  It  is  believed  that  but  for  certain 
insecticides  and  fungicides  the  fruit  and  potato  industry  of  this 
country  would  have  been  wiped  out  in  certain  districts,  while  in  the 
protection  of  shade  trees  and  shrubs,  especially  in  New  England, 
from  the  gypsy  moth,  and  brown-tail  moth,  they  have  been  of  very 
great  assistance.  Messrs.  McCall  and  Peters,  of  your  committee,  will 
bear  me  out  in  this  statement. 

The  company  which  I  represent  manufactures  insecticides  and  fun- 
gicides, and  for  that  reason  it  is  interested  in  having  the  raw  mate- 
rials which  enter  into  its  products  admitted  duty  free. 

The  essential  destructive  agents  of  the  efficient  insecticides  and 
fungicides  are  arsenic,  sulphur,  and  copper. 

Arsenic  (par.  77)  is  now  on  the  free  list,  and  it  is  proposed  to  retain 
it  in  H.  R.  20182. 

Sulphur  (par.  OS)  is  now  on  the  free  list,  and  it  is  proposed  to  con- 
tinue it  in  the  new  bill. 

Copper  (par.  81)  in  the  form  of  blue  vitriol  carries  a  duty  of  one- 
fourtn  per  cent  per  pound  under  the  Payne  Act.  and  in  the  new  bill 
it  is  proposed  to  make  it  free,  to  which  we  subscribe,  and  therefore 
we  urge  it  for  the  reason  that  wo  use  it  extensively  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  fungicides,  but  we  do  not  manufacture  it. 

Paris  green  and  london  purple  (par.  91)  now  carry  a  duty  of  15  per 
cent,  and  it  is  proposed  to  put  mom  on  the  free  list,  to  which  the 
farmer  certainly  will  not  object,  and  we  do  not,  but  I  should  add  that 
wo  do  not  manufacture  thorn. 

But  the  particular  article  to  which  I  want  to  call  your  attention 
is  soda,  arseniate  of  (par.  7]),  which  carries  a  duty  under  the  Payne 
Act  of  1  cont  per  pound,  but  in  H.  R.  20182  it  is  proposed  to  make 
it  one-half  cont  a  pound.  While  this  proposed  reduction  is  a  step  in 
the  right  direction,  yet  1  would  respectfully  request  that  this  article 
be  admit  I od  duty  froo  for  the  following  reasons: 

To  most  manufacturers  of  insecticides,  and  to  all  farmers  who  man- 
ufacture their  own,  arseniate  of  soda  is  the  initial  source  of  arsenic 


SCHEDULE  A.  417 

PARAGRAPH  76— SILICATE  OF  SODA. 

and  therefore  more  essential  than  arsenic,  which  is  admitted  duty 
free,  and  which  is  the  destructive  poison  in  all  insecticides  used  for 
killing  leaf-eating  insects. 

It  may  be  urged  that  arseniate  of  soda  is  a  manufactured  product, 
which  is  true;  so  likewise  is  blue  vitriol,  which  is  the  initial  source  of 
copper,  the  destructive  fungicidal  agent  in  the  preparation  of  Bor- 
deaux mixture  by  farmers  and  by  many  manufacturers.  Since  both 
are  initial  sources,  one  of  copper  and  the  other  of  arsenic,  both  should 
be  admitted  free. 

Arseniate  of  soda  does  not  materially  contribute  to  the  revenue 
(only  $1,684  in  1911)  and  it  never  will,  but  the  duty  on  it  serves  to 
keep  up  its  price  in  this  country,  and  thus  the  price  of  insecticides  of 
which  it  forms  a  component  part. 

I  therefore  respectfully  request  that  before  H.  R.  20182  is  submit- 
ted in  its  revised  form  that  arseniate  of  soda  (par.  71)  be  put  on  the 
free  list,  instead  of  at  one-half  cent  per  pound  as  proposed,  and  that 
blue  vitriol  (par.  81)  be  put  on  the  free  list  as  proposed. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

W.  H.  BOWKER, 
President  Bowker  Insecticide  Go. 

43  CHATHAM  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS.,  January  29,  191S. 

PARAGRAPH  76. 

Silicate  of  soda,  or  other  alkaline  silicate,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per 
pound. 
See  Grasselli  Chemical  Co.,  page  329. 

SILICATE  OF  SODA. 

BRIEF    OF    MECHLING    BEOS.    MANUFACTTTKING    CO., 
CAMDEN,  N.  J. 

CAMDEN,  N.  J.,  January  4, 1918. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  G. 

GENTLEMEN:  When  your  honorable  committee  considers  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  duty  on  silicate  of  soda,  we  would  like  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  there  are  a  number  of  grades  of  silicate  of  soda 
manufactured  abroad,  and  that  if  you  form  a  new  tariff  bill  let  your 
committee  specifically  name  the  various  grades.  The  present  tariff 
bill  makes  the  rate  of  duty  on  all  grades  of  silicate  of  soda  the  same. 
Silicate  of  soda  glass  which  contains  100  per  cent  of  silicate  of  soda 
takes  the  same  rate  as  a  common  solution  which  tests  40°  Baume" 
and  contains  about  38  per  cent  of  silicate  of  soda.  The  other  grade 
imported  tests  60°  Banine"  and  contains  about  52  £  per  cent  of  silicate 
of  soda.  We  request  that  your  honorable  committee  in  forming  your 
bill  specify  the  percentage  of  silicate  of  soda  on  which  duty  .is  to  be 
paid. 

We  further  protest  on  the  ground  that  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
a  low-priced  article  is  manifestly  unfair  to  manufacturers  located  on 
the  Atlantic  coast,  as  it  opens  competition  from  abroad,  which  they 

78959°— VOL  1—13 27 


418  TAKIFF  HEABTNGS. 

PARAGRAPH  76— SILICATE  OF  SODA. 

alone  feel.  The  interior  manufacturers  are  not  affected,  because  the 
imported  goods  can  not  come  into  their  territory  on  account  of  the 
freight  rate  from  the  seacoast. 

The  object  of  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  is  therefore  defeated,  inas- 
much as  prices  are  not  reduced  excepting  along  the  Atlantic  coast. 

Trusting  that  your  committee  will  give  the  foregoing  their  consid- 
eration, we  beg  to  remain, 
Very  truly,  yours, 

MECHLING  BEOS.  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
BENJ.  S.  MECHLING,  Secretary. 

BRIEF   OF  THE   PHILADELPHIA    (PA.)    QUARTZ   CO.   ON   SILI- 
CATE   OF    SODA. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  January  7, 191$. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

ESTEEMED  FRIEND:  Referring  to  i: Notice  of  tariff  hearings,  1913," 
dated  December  11,  1912. 

When  Schedule  A  was  under  consideration  last  year  by  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee  we  addressed  a  letter  to  Senator  Boies  Penrose, 
as  chairman  of  said  committee,  under  date  of  March  6,  1912,  and  take 
the  liberty  of  submitting  a  copy  of  the  same  as  representing  our  views 
on  the  subject: 

Under  the  existing  tariff  bill  60°  Baume1  silicate  of  soda  is  being  imported  and  40° 
Baum6  is  not.  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  foreign  producers  are  able  to  pay 
the  present  rate  of  duty  on  silicate  of  soda  selling  approximately  at  double  the  price 
of  the  ordinary  40°  silicate. 

In  the  proposed  chemical  schedule  now  under  consideration  silicate  of  soda  is 
reduced  from  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound  to  one-eighth  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
while  the  duty  on  soda  ash  (which  is  one  of  the  two  raw  materials  from  which  silicate 
of  soda  is  made)  is  reduced  from  one-quarter  of  1  cent  per  pound  to  one-eighth  of  1 
cent  per  pound. 

When  the  present  tariff  was  prepared  the  existing  relative  rates  on  soda  ash  and 
silicate  of  soda  undoubtedly  received  careful  consideration,  and  it  seems  to  us  rea- 
sonable that  the  same  proportion  should  be  maintained  in  the  proposed  tariff,  whereas 
there  has  been  a  reduction  on  soda  ash  of  50  per  cent  and  on  silicate  of  soda  66$  per 
cent.  If  the  foreign  producer  should  be  able  to  save  25  cents  per  100  pounds  on  his 
present  American  cost  he  would  be  in  a  position  to  name  a  price  which  should  enable 
nim  to  take  much,  if  not  all,  of  the  trade  using  the  alkaline  silicates  and  probably 
much  of  the  tonnage  more  neutral  than  the  60°,  that  sells  at  a  higher  price  than 
the  40°. 

Owing  to  the  variation  in  the  quality  and  gravity  of  the  silicate  of  soda  now  being 
used  it  would  seem  reasonable,  in  fact' right  and  proper,  that  the  difference  in  value 
should  be  recognized  and  the  rate  per  pound  van-  with  the  Baum6  test;  otherwise 
the  rate  should  be  sufficiently  high  to  meet  all  conditions. 

We  believe  as  great  a  reduction  in  duty  as  was  proposed  in  the  bill 
referred  to  will  prove  a  hardship,  and  we  would  appreciate  thy  calling 
the  attention  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to  the  variation  in 
value  and  gravity  of  silicate  of  soda  as  stated  above. 
Respectfully, 

PHILADELPHIA  QUARTZ  Co. 
WM.  T.  ELKINTON,  President. 


SCHEDULE  A.  419 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

PARAGRAPH  77. 

Sulphate  of  soda,  or  salt  cake,  or  niter  cake,  one  dollar  per  ton. 

PARAGRAPH  78. 

Moss  and  sea  grass,  eel  grass,  and  seaweeds,  if  manufactured  or  dyed, 
ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  79. 

Sponges,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  manufactures  of  sponges,  or  of 
which  sponge  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

SPONGES. 

STATEMENT  OF  ALBERT  HART,  REPRESENTING  LEOUSI, 
CLONNEY  &  CO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hart,  will  you  give  your  name  and  address  to 
the  stenographer  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Albert  Hart,  3941  Walker  Street,  New  York. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  has  assigned  to  you  15  minutes. 

Mr.  HART.  Before  commencing  my  address  I  desire  to  state  that 
through  a  clerical  error  Nassau,  N.  P.,  was  omitted  from  my  brief  in 
connection  with  imports,  and  that  said  imports  amount  to  about 
$100,000.  That  is  in  connection  with  imports  from  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  Cuba. 

I  appear  before  you  as  an  American  manufacturer  asking  to  have 
the  entire  duty  removed,  not  only  from  the  raw  material  of  my  in- 
dustry but  from  the  manufactured  product.  I  do  this  because  ex- 
perience has  demonstrated  that  the  duty  on  the  manufactured 
product  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  permit  or  to  maintain  an  Ameri- 
can industry,  and  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  prevents  us  from 
expanding  an  American  manufacturing  industry.  This  is  particularly 
important  just  on  the  eve  of  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal.  If 
you  will  remove  the  duty  from  raw  sponges,  we  American  manufac- 
turers can  compete  with  Great  Britain,  which  is  our  chief  rival  for 
the  South  American  trade,  as  well  as  for  the  trade  of  Australia,  Can- 
ada. Japan,  and  other  countries. 

The  duty  is  not  needed  to  protect  any  American  industry  producing 
the  raw  material  of  our  manufacture.  Practically  all  the  sponges  of 
the  United  States  are  produced  upon  the  coast  of  Florida.  They  are 
of  a  very  high  quality  and  the  demand  for  them  always  exceeds  the 
supply. "  The  industry  only  employs  about  100  boats  of  10  tons  each 
and  1 ,000  men.  The  sponges  which  we  import  both  from  the  Medi- 
terranean and  from  Cuba  can  not  be  substituted  for  the  American 
sponge;  consequently  if  we  American  manufacturers  concede  that 
we  do  not  need  any  measure  of  protection  for  our  finished  product, 
there  is  no  question  of  protection  to  any  American  industry  involved. 

The  duty  ought  to  be  abolished  because  it  is  a  direct  and  entire  tax 
added  to  the  foreign  market  value  of  the  product  and  paid  by  the 
consumer.  To  illustrate:  If  the  foreign  market  value  of  an  imported 
sponge  is  a  dollar  a  pound,  and  we  sell  it  in  this  country  without 
adding  to  its  value  by  any  process  of  manufacture,  we  add  to  the 
dollar  25  per  cent  to  cover  the  duty  and  charges,  and  this  sum  the 
American  consumer  pays  in  addition  to  our  profit.  If  the  tariff  is 


420  TABTFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

taken  off  sponges,  the  price  to  the  consumer  of  the  ordinary  bath  and 
toilet  sponge,  which  is  a  necessity,  will  be  immediately  reduced  20  per 
cent.  This  will  be  accomplished  because  the  competition  in  America 
between  importing  firms  is  very  keen,  and  no  firm  or  firms  will  con- 
tinue the  prices  based  on  the  present  tariff  if  that  tariff  were  removed. 
Also,  if  the  tarn?  was  reduced,  we  could  continue  to  pay  the  same  rate 
of  wages  in  our  factories  that  we  are  now  paying,  so  there  is  no 
question  of  mamtaining  the  American  rate  of  wage  in  our  industry. 
We  chiefly  desire  the  abolition  of  this  duty  so  we  could  increase  the 
volume  of  our  manufactured  product,  which  would,  of  course, 
increase  the  number  of  men  employed  in  the  various  establishments, 
and  we  believe  that  this  extension  of  an  American  industry  would  be 
of  far  greater  permanent  value  to  the  country  than  the  inconsiderable 
duty  now  collected. 

We  set  out  in  detail  in  our  brief  the  reason  why  we  can  not  for  our 
export  trade  avail  ourselves  of  the  drawback  provisions  of  the  existing 
tariff  law. 

In  conclusion,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that 
no  tariff  will  foster  this  particular  American  industry,  because  a 
sponge  is  an  animal  product,  but  it  is  of  a  low  organism,  and  no 
scheme  which  is  commercially  practicable  has  as  yet  been  devised 
for  increasing  the  product.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Government  has 
been  compelled  to  adopt  stringent  regulations  to  prevent  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  domestic  industry  through  the  gathering  of  the  entire 
Florida  crop  at  one  time  (see  ch.  3342  laws  of  1906,  34  Stat.  L., 
p.  313)  and  makes  an  annual  appropriation  to  protect  the  sponge 
fisheries,  which  appropriation  for  the  current  year  is  $3,500.  If 
anything,  therefore,  the  importation  and  use  of  foreign  sponges 
wherever  they  can  be  substituted  for  the  American  sponges  saves  and 
protects  our  American  industry  from  destructive  exploitation. 

Air.  PAYNE .  As  I  understand  you,  the  only  effect  of  this  duty  is  to 
bring  in  a  revenue  of  $43,000  ? 

Mr.  HART.  I  think  it  is  about  $59,000. 

Air.  PAYNE.  Sir  ? 

Air.  HART.  I  think  it  is  about  $59,000. 

Air.  PAYNE.  The  only  effect,  as  far  as  benefits  are  concerned,  is  to 
bring  you  a  revenue  of  843,000  ? 

Air.  HART.  Somewhere  around  $40,000  or  $50,000. 

Air.  PAYNE.  You  are  aware  that  this  committee  is  making  a  tariff 
for  revenue  only,  and  you  are  making  an  argument  because  it  is  not 
protective — 

Air.  HART.  We  are  making;  the  argument  because  the  amount  of 
duty  that  is  collected  is  so  very  inconsiderable  as  against 

Air.  PAYNE.  It  is  not  protective  at  all? 

Air.  HART.  Sir  ? 

Air.  PAYNE.  It  does  not  protect  any  industry,  you  say? 

Air.  HART.  It  does  not  protect  our  manufacturing  industry. 

Air.  PAYNE.  It  simply  brings  in  a  revenue  of  $43,000? 

Air.  HART.  It  brings  in  a  revenue  somewhere  in  that  neighborhood. 

Air.  PAYNE.  As  I  understand  it,  this  committee  is  looking  for  just 
such  tilings  ;is  that  a  tariff  for  revenue. 


SCHEDULE  A.  421 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

Mr.  HART.  But  the  country  is  also  looking  to  the  expanding  of 
American  manufacturing  industries,  which  will  help  us  to  capture  the 
export  trade. 

At  the  present  time  we  are  totally  unable  to  capture  that  export 
trade.  Great  Britain  has  aU  the  advantage  of  the  duty,  and  we  are 
not  able  to  go  to  a  foreign  country,  into  Canada,  Australia,  or  Japan, 
and  compete  with  the  British  houses. 

We  have  found  that  out  from  experience.  We  have  sent  a  man  to 
South  America  and  we  have  also  sent  a  man  to  Australia  at  a  loss,  as 
we  found  that  our  prices,  with  the  duty,  are  higher  than  the  prices  of 
our  British  competitors;  and  if  we  should  have  this  duty  removed,  it 
would  enable  the  expansion  of  this  export  trade;  it  will  largely  in- 
crease the  number  of  men  we  will  be  able  to  employ  and  make  the 
business  a  far  larger  one  than  it  is  at  the  present  time. 

Gentlemen,  what  is  the  sponge  business  at  the  present  time  ?  It  is 
of  very  small  volume.  The  output  of  American  sponges  is  only 
worth  $700,000,  and  that  is  not  sufficient  to  supply  our  demands. 
The  production  of  $700,000  worth  of  sponges  is  as  nothing  against 
the  enlarging  of  the  foreign  trade  and  the  expansion  of  the  manu- 
facturing interests  of  our  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  read  into  the  record,  hi  connection  with 
your  statement,  the  Treasury  report  of  the  importations  with  refer- 
ence to  this  article.  I  find  from  this  report  that  for  1911  the  total 
importations  were  valued  at  $256,479;  the  duties  amounted  to 
$48,371,  and  the  average  tax  was  18.86  per  cent  ad  valorem.  That 
was  on  raw  sponges — 

Mr.  HART.  And  manufactured  sponges 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Allow  me  to  finish. 

Mr.  HART.  I  beg  your  pardon. 


The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  value  of  the  raw  sponges.  Of 
manufactured  products,  the  importations  amounted  to  only  $61; 
the  duties  were  $18  and  the  tax  was  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  HART.  The  record  is  not  correct.  With  due  respect  to  your 
Honor,  the  record  is  not  correct. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  the  committee  will  have  to  take  the 
Treasury  report  on  that,  but  if  you  have  anything  further  to  say 
about  it 

Mr.  HART.  With  due  respect  to  the  committee,  the  Treasury 
report  is  entirely  inaccurate.  The  volume  of  manufactured  sponges 
imported  into  the  United  States,  that  is  chemically  bleached,  will 
be  considerably  more  than  that  sum  mentioned  by  you  many  many 
tunes.  I  know  one  house  alone  which  imports  a  considerable  quan- 
tity of  chemically  bleached  sponges,  running  up  into  the  thousands 
of  dollars — not  a  fewpaltry  dollars,  but  thousands  of  dollars. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.   What  is  a  manufactured  sponge  ? 

Mr.  HART.  A  sponge  that  is  chemically  bleached.  It  is  the  differ- 
ence between  the  raw  material  (that  is,  a  sponge  in  its  natural  state, 
after  it  has  been  cleaned  or  freed  of  its  animal  matter)  and  the 
bleached  sponge.  The  raw  material  is  the  sponge  in  its  natural  state 
as  shipped  from  the  fisheries,  trimmed  from  its  roots  and  untreated 
by  chemicals. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  My  purpose  in  reading  this  into  the  record  is 
simply  to  show  that  the  present  duty  on  manufactured  sponges  was 


422  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

prohibitive  and  that  practically  none  was  coming  in;  that  only  the 
raw  material  was  coming  in.  It  was  not  against  your  argument. 
But  I  want  to  say  this,  that  of  course  the  committee  will  be  bound  to 
accept  the  Treasury  figures,  unless  you  can  produce  evidence  contro- 
verting them.  If  you  wish,  you  may  file,  hereafter,  a  statement 
showing  on  what  evidence  you  base  your  statement. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir ;  the  Treasury  statement  is  absolutely  incorrect. 

Mi.  KITCHIN.  As  I  read  it,  in  1912  the  Treasury  report  shows  only 
$58  coming  in. 

Mr.  HART.  It  is  absolutely  ridiculous. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  want  to  know  how  they  got  in  here  without 
being  put  on  the  customhouse  books. 

Mr.  HART.  The  reason  may  be  that  there  is  no  specific  duty  for 
the  raw  material  and  the  bleached.  The  duty  on  the  raw  material 
and  the  manufactured  product  is  one  and  the  same.  There  is  no 
reason  whatever  for  an  importei 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  You  mean,  they  might  have  to  class 
them  at  the  customhouse  as  raw  ? 

Mr.  HART.  If  they  bad  classified  that  20  per  cent  duty  on  raw 
material  and  30  per  cent  duty  on  manufactured  sponges,  we  would 
have  been  in  duty  bound  to  have  entered  them  as  such  and  classify 
them  as  such,  whether  raw  or  bleached.  The  law  only  says  20  per 
cent  on  sponges  ad  valorem. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  no;  let  me  read  you  the  law. 

Paragraph  79  of  the  Payne  law  reads  as  follows: 

Sponges,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  manufactures  of  sponges,  or  of  which 
sponge  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  sec- 
tion, thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  HART.  That  refers  to  such  sponges  as  antiseptic  sponges, 
which  are  put  up  in  bottles,  and  sponges  that  are  specially  put  up 
for  medical  uses,  such  as  operations,  and  so  forth,  and  used  oy  the 
medical  profession,  but  not  sponges  that  are  used  in  commerce. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  other  words,  the  bleached  sponge,  which  you  call 
the  manufactured  sponge,  comes  in  under  the  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 
duty  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Absolutely;  and  if  the  record  of  the  Treasury  is  other- 
wise, then  there  is  not  an  importer  in  the  country,  who  is  importing 
sponges,  chemically  bleached,  that  is  entering  them  other  than  at 
the  low  rate.  We  would  like  to  have  a  separate  duty  on  all  chemi- 
cally bleached  sponges.  We  would  be  very  well  satisfied  if  you 
would  admit  the  raw  material  free  and  put  a  duty  on  the  chemically 
bleached  sponges.  We  think  that  ought  to  be  done. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Your  definition  of  a  manufactured  sponge  is  a 
chemically  bleached  sponge  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  that  is  not  accepted  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment as  their  definition  of  a  manufactured  sponge? 

Mr.  HART.  Evidently  not.  They  only  classify  those  for  the  med- 
ical profession. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  that  just  the  custom  of  the  trade? 

Mr.  HART.  Just  the  custom  of  the  trade. 


SCHEDULE  A.  423 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  are  the  materials  of  manufacture  that  you 
use  in  bleaching  your  sponges  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Permanganate  of  potash,  hydrochloride,  muriatic  acid, 
and  sal  soda. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Of  course,  you  realize  in  trying  to  arrange  a  tariff 
the  question  would  arise,  in  putting  sponges  on  the  free  list,  whether 
all  the  materials  of  manufacture  were  also  on  the  free  list  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir;  some  are  and  some  are  not,  I  presume;  but 
if  some  of  the  materials  are  not  paying  a  duty  we  think  that  would 
be  all  the  more  reason  why  the  chemically  bleached  should  pay  a 
higher  duty  than  the  raw  material. 

Air.  HARRISON.  But  it  does  pay  a  duty. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes;  but  the  raw  material  also  pays  a'duty  at  the  same 
rate,  gentlemen,  as  chemically  bleached.  Why  should  not  the  raw 
material  have  a  benefit  over  the  chemically  bleached  ? 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  think  there  has  be«n  a  misreading  of  that 
section  of  the  law,  and  I  think  that  the  text  of  the  law  will  corroborate 
the  witness  enthely.  We  have  in  all  the  schedules  a  saving  clause 
covering  things  not  otherwise  provided  for,  but  I  think  bleached 
sponges  are  provided  for,  and  that  applies  only  to  manufactured 
sponges  or  articles  of  which  sponge  constitutes  the  component  ma- 
terial of  chief  value.  I  think  the  text  of  the  law  is  in  accordance 
with  what  the  witness  has  stated. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  provision  with  ref- 
erence to  bleached  sponges  in  the  tariff. 

Mr.  HART.  I  do  not  think  it  mentions  raw  materials 

The  CHAIRMAN  (intei posing).  There  is  no  reference  to  bleached 
sponges. 

Mr.  HART.  The  bleached  sponges  and  the  raw  material  come  in  at 
the  same  rate  of  duty.  That  is  not  fair. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  trade  considers  a  bleached  sponge  a  manu- 
factured sponge,  but  the  Treasury  Department  does  not  so  consider  it. 

Mr.  HART.  It  only  provides  for  sponges.  Consequently  bleached 
sponges  and  raw  material  come  m  at  one  and  the  same  duty,  which  is 
not  fair.  We  want  to  expand  the  manufacturing  end  of  it  and  to  be 
able  to  go  into  foreign  countries  and  to  capture  tneir  trade,  which  we 
can  not  do  at  present.  It  cost  us  $5,000  last  year  to  send  a  man  to 
Australia  to  try  to  sell  manufactured  products,  just  to  find  out  that 
we  were  too  high.  I  wanted  to  put  a  letter  in  as  a  matter  of  record, 
but  my  attorney  thought  it  would  be  of  no  material  importance.  We 
had  a  letter  from  one  of  our  customers,  telling  us  that  our  prices  were 
higher  than  the  prices  of  our  competitors.  The  statement  was  made 
verbally  to  our  Australian  agent,  "Oh,  well,  your  firm  has  to  pay  a 
duty  of  20  per  cent  on  sponges,  and  there  is  that  much  difference. 
We  can,  of  course,  buy  cheaper  in  England,  and  we  do  not  have  to 
pay  that  duty  on  the  manufactured  product."  If  we  did  not  have  to 
pay  that  duty,  Jack  would  be  as  good  as  his  master.  We  should  be 
given  an  opportunity  to  expand  our  manufacturing  industry;  we 
should  be  permitted  to  get  our  raw  materials  free,  and  that  would 
enable  us  to  manufacture  sponges  cheaper  and  employ  a  larger  num- 
ber of  men,  and  we  would  be  able  to  pay  the  same  rate  of  wages  as 
we  do  at  the  present  time.  If  we  were  enabled  to  increase  by  two 
or  three  times  our  manufacturing  business  it  would  be  far  more 


424  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

important,  gentlemen,  than  the  forty  or  fifty  thousand  dollars  in  duty 
that  would  be  collected. 

Look  at  the  small  contracted  business  that  it  is ;  $700,000  worth  in 
in  Florida  and  $400,000  worth  imported;  $1,100,000  worth  of  sponges. 
Are  you  not  suprised  at  the  smallness  of  our  business  ?  Can't  you  do 
something  to  help  us  to  increase  it  ?  Are  we  to  remain  small  people 
all  the  time  ?  There  are  only  about  13  real  importers  in  the  business, 
yet  there  are  about  40  firms,  that  is  to  say,  ordinary  firms,  who  share 
m  that  small  volume  of  business.  At  the  present  time,  gentlemen, 
we  have  a  representative  in  Japan.  We  are  spending  our  money  try- 
ing to  get  the  export  business.  We  have  sent  a  man  to  South  Amer- 
ica. He  has  been  down  there  for  two  years,  and  we  are  in  hopes  and 
are  spending  a  lot  of  money  that  we  can  make  a  success  of  it.  If  we 
do  not  make  a  success  of  it  the  first  year,  we  will  make  a  success  of  it 
the  second  year,  and  if  we  do  not  make  a  success  of  it  the  second  year 
we  are  still  going  to  try  until  we  capture  it.  And  we  are  going  to 
do  it  if  you  will  give  us  the  necessary  assistance. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Is  it  your  view  that  the  system  that  makes  the 
cost  of  manufacture  higher  in  the  United  States  then  elsewhere  tends 
to  limit  our  foreign  trade  ? 

Mr.  HART.  The  duty  is  the  thing  that  is  the  drawback  to  us. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  say,  the  levying  of  the  duty  in  this  country  is 
the  thing  that  tends  to  increase  the  cost  of  manufacture,  and  do  you 
think  that  limits  your  foreign  trade  ? 

Mr.  HART.  That  is  true.  It  entirely  tends  to  prevent  our  success- 
fully competing  in  price  with  our  British  competitors,  who  have  in 
their  control 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  The  manufacturer  would  do  just  as  well  if  he 
had  a  higher  profit  on  his  American  trade  ? 

Mr.  HART.  No;  but  the  American  manufacturers  would  increase 
their  home  business  as  well  as  the  export,  because  the  American 
material  is  sj  very  short  of  the  supply  that,  if  we  can  reduce  the  cost 
of  the  imported  goods,  we  will  bring  them  within  reach  of  the  populace 
in  general. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  think  to  take  this  tariff  off  the  raw  material 
would  cheapen  the  product  to  the  consumer  of  the  finished  product? 

Mr.  HART.  Absolutely  so. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Would  it  encourage  your  industry  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Absolutely  so.  If  we  had  raw  material  free  and  20  per 
cent  duty  on  chemically  bleached  sponges,  it  would  expand  our 
business. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  expand  the  market  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Expand  the  market.  I  think  it  would  tend  to  increase 
and  expand  the  manufactures  to  a  great  extent  and  put  us  in  touch 
with  the  Australian,  South  American,  China,  and  Japan  trades. 

Mr.  JAMES.  This  is  a  protective  tariff,  then,  that  does  not  protect  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Absolutely  a  protective  tariff,  which  retards  our  expan- 
sion, the  expansion  of  our  manufacturing  industry,  and  it  is  of  quite 
serious  importance  to  us. 

Mr.  JAMES.  By  reason  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  tarff  on  the  raw 
material  ? 

Mr.  HART,  There  is  at  the  present  time  a  tariff  on  the  raw  material 
and  on  the  manufactured  material  at  one  and  the  same  rate. 


SCHEDULE  A.  426 

PARAGRAPH  79     SPONGES. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  say  that  if  sponges  are  put  on  the  free  list 
you  will  reduce  the  price  20  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then,  why  will  you  be  better  off  than  you  are 
now? 

Mr.  HAKT.  As  a  firm,  we  do  not  expect  to  reap  the  benefit  from 
the  20  per  cent,  except  by  the  expansion  of  our  trade.  We  will  not 
make  any  more. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  make  the  positive  statement  in  your  brief 
that  you  have  to  add  20  per  cent  to  the  price  because  of  the  tariff  cost. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  then  say  that  if  the  tariff  is  taken  off  you 
will  immediately  reduce  your  price  20  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  are  you  better  off  ? 

Mr.  HART.  In  the  first  place,  the  public  at  large  will  receive  the 
greater  benefit  from  the  reduction  in  price. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  No;  but  you  pay  20  per  cent  more  by  virtue  of 
the  tariff,  you  say,  and  you  say  the  moment  the  tariff  is  taken  off 
you  will  reduce  your  price  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  are  you  better  off  ? 

Mr.  HART.  We  are  better  on  by  reason  of  the  expansion  of  our  busi- 
ness. We  hope  to  double  and  treble  our  business  by  reason  of  having 
raw  material  free,  to  enable  us  to  manufacture  and  sell  at  a  reduction 
of  20  per  cent.  We  hope  that  will  be  the  means  of  our  doubling  or 
threefolding  the  present  volume  of  the  business  that  we  already  have; 
and,  of  course,  naturally,  the  same  applies  to  all  other  importers 
who  are  with  me  in  this  movement. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  can  not  see  how  there  is  any  difference  whether 
you  add  20  per  cent  to  your  original  cost  or  take  it  off  the  price. 

Mr.  HART.  If  we  are  able  to  take  it  off  our  raw  material,  our  manu- 
factured product  will  cost  us  that  much  less.  Consequently,  we  can 
go  into  the  foreign  markets  and  sell  to  foreign  countries  20  per  cent 
cheaper  than  we  are  to-day.  Must  not  that  be  of  benefit  to  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  can  not  see  how  it  is  of  benefit  to  you. 

Mr.  HART.  We  are  unable  to  get  into  the  foreign  markets  now, 
and  is  it  of  no  benefit  to  expand  the  trade  of  these  countries  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  talking  about  your  business. 

Mr.  HART.  We  are  looking  to  the  business  as  a  whole,  and  not  our- 
selves personally. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  thought  you  were. 

Mr.  HART.  With  this  exception:  We  do  look  in  the  long  run 
to  expand  our  business  to  such  an  extent  as  to  get  the  benefit  of  it. 
We  are  not  looking  to  the  benefit  of  the  general  public  in  the  long  run 
alone. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  HART.  But  we  do  not  think  that  will  come  before  6  or  9  or  12 
months.  It  will  take  some  time  to  feel  the  benefit  of  it,  whereas 
the  public  at  large  will  receive  the  immediate  benefit  of  this  reduction. 

Mr.  HILL.  Under  the  Dingley  law,  the  duty  was  40  per  cent  on 
the  manufactured  product  and  20  per  cent  on  the  raw  material. 


426  TARIFF  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

Mr.  HART.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  say,  under  the  Dingley  law  the  duty  on  the  finished 
product  was  40  per  cent  and  on  the  raw  product  20  per  cent,  and  the 
duty  was  reduced  by  the  Payne  bill  to  30  and  20  per  cent.  What  is 
the  objection  you  have  in  regard  to  the  raw  material,  where  there  is 
no  change  from  20  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HART.  We  have  not  been  able  to  expand  our  export  business, 
nor  to  increase  our  manufacturing  business  by  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  But  what  you  want  now  is  the  duty  taken  off  entirely 
from  the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes;  to  enable  us  to  expand  the  manufacturing  end. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  really  an  increase  in  duty  of  20  per  cent,  if  you 
leave  the  manufactured  product  the  same. 

Mr.  HART.  But  we  are  going  to  protect  ourselves  hi  this  country. 

Mr.  HILL.  On  the  finished  product,  and  raw  material,  too. 

Mr.  HART.  We  are  going  to  manufacture  the  finished  material 
ourselves  and  give  labor  a  chance  to  make  many  times  more  than 
at  present.  We  will  increase  the  amount  of  wages  we  are  to  pay 
and  will  reap  the  benefit  of  it  in  the  long  run  through  the  expansion 
and  doubling  of  our  business,  besides  giving  the  general  public  at 
large  the  benefit. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  many  do  you  employ  now  ? 

Mr.  HART.  We  employ  at  the  present  time  about  18. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  About  18? 

Mr.  HART.  Eighteen. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Eighteen  American  laborers  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  long  do  you  work  them  a  day? 

Mr.  HART.  How  long  what,  sir  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  long  do  you  work  them;  how  many  hours 
a  day  do  they  work  ? 

Mr.  HART.  They  work  from  8.30  in  the  morning  until  5.30  in  the 
afternoon. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Nine  hours. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir;  nine  hours. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  they  all  men  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Mostly  married  men,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Eighteen  of  them  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Eighteen  of  them— about  18. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Now,  you  want  to  expand  this  industry? 

Mr.  HART.  We  would  like  to  employ  36. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  As  many  as  that  ? 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir;  we  hope  to. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  produce  the  manufactures  of  sponges,  or  do 
you  manufacture  a  sponge  by  bleaching  it,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  HART.  We  manufacture  a  sponge  by  bleaching,  trimming  it, 
and  assorting  it,  casing  it,  and  sending  out  salesmen  to  sell  the 
sponges. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  your  completed  product  comes  in  at  20  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HART.  The  manufactured  product  comes  in  at  a  rate  of  20 
per  cent,  and  the  raw  material  comes  in  at  the  same  rate. 

Mr.  HILL.  This  bill  which  passed  the  House  at  the  last  session  pro- 
posed to  reduce  your  raw-material  rate  to  15  per  cent,  but  left  the 


SCHEDULE   A.  427 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

duty- on  your  finished  product  at  20  per  cent,  making  a  margin  of 
5  per  cent  as  against  the  Payne  bill  of  12  per  cent. 

Mr.  HART.  A  margin  of  5  per  cent.  We  would  just  as  leave  the 
Government  put  the  entire  duty  of  20  per  cent  on. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  should  not  the  duty  be  taken  off  both  ? 

Mr.  HART.  We  have  no  objection  whatever  to  having  it  taken  off 
both  the  raw  material  and  the  manufactured  material.  Then  Jack 
is  as  good  as  his  master  as  against  England,  and  we  in  the  United 
States  would  be  perfectly  able  to  take  care  of  ourselves  as  against 
the  English  salesman. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  say  you  just  employ  18  men.  Then  this  is  really 
an  infant  industry. 

Mr.  HART.  The  whole  industry  is  an  infant  one,  from  the  stand- 
point of  size,  and  from  the  number  of  years  it  has  been  in  existence, 
and  it  is  for  you  gentlemen  to  help  to  expand  it. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  These  tariff  rates  are  levied  for  two  purposes — 
one  is  to  get  revenue  and  the  other  is  to  protect  the  laboring  man. 

Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  To  protect  American  men,  including  these  18 
men- 
Mr.  HART.  Yes,  sir;  I  might  remind  you  that  Mr.  Longworth  did 
not  ask  me  the  number  of  men  employed  as  a  whole,  because  that 
question  I  could  not  correctly  answer. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  Mr.  Longworth, 
seemed  to  ridicule  the  fact  that  you  employed  only  18. 

Mr.  HART.  I  did  not  take  it  as  such. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  I  am  sympathizing  with  his  ambition  to  expand 
to  36. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  say  this  tariff  is  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the 
laboring  men,  even  if  there  are  only  18  of  them. 

Mr.  HART.  But  the  revenue  is  too  small  to  be  considered  as  against 
the  laboring  man. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  many  firms  are  there  engaged  in  this  same 
business  ? 

Mr.  HART.  I  am  speaking  for  95  per  cent  of  the  importers  in  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  many  are  engaged  hi  this  same  business  besides 
your  own  ? 

Mr.  HART.  I  should  say  about  20. 

Mr.  JAMES.  About  20  ? 

Mr.  HART.  That  we  recognize.  There  are  a  good  many  smaller 
concerns  also  who  are,  of  course,  entitled  to  the  same  consideration, 
but  I  figure  only  the  general  average  of  firms  with  which  we  come  into 
fair  competition. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  many  men  are  engaged  in  this  work  in  the  United 
States  ? 

Mr.  HART.  That  I  could  not  exactly  say,  because,  of  course,  I  have 
not  been  permitted  to  go  into  our  competitors'  factories.  There  are 
six  firms  that  certainly  employ  as  many  men  as  we  do  and  one  firm 
that  probably  employs  more  than  we  do,  but  there  are  more  firms 
than  that.  They  employ  a  certain  number  of  men.  There  are  two 
or  three  hundred  men  actually  employed.  It  is  a  small,  mconsider- 


428  TABIPF  HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  79— SPONGES. 

able  business.  It  is  a  business  that  if  anything  can  be  done  t«  help 
it  expand,  its  benefits  can  be  very  clearly  seen  at  a  glance. 

We  shall  appreciate  it  very  much  if  you  can  see  your  way  clear  to 
accomplish  that  end. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  sir. 

Mr.  HART.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  witness  filed  the  following  papers  with  the  committee: 

BRIEF  OF  LEOTJSI,  CLONNEY  &  Co.  ET  AL,  ADVOCATING  THE  REPEAL  OF  JTHE  DUTY 

ON  SPONGES. 

PRESENT  RATE. 

The  present  duty  on  sponges  is  found  in  paragraph  79  of  the  Payne  law,  and  is  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  is  the  same  rate  as  under  the  act  of  1897. 

GENERAL   INFORMATION. 

Until  1852  nearly  all  the  sponges  used  in  the  United  States  were  imported  from 
the  Mediterranean.  In  that  year  Florida  commenced  to  supply  sponges.  The 
Florida  supply  is  largely  made  up  of  what  is  known  as  the  sheep's  wool  sponge,  which 
is  as  high  priced  as  any  sponge  in  the  market.  The  industry  has  been  a  variable 
one,  aa  the  sponge  is  an  animal  of  a  low  order,  and  a  system  of  sponge  culture  capable 
of  extending  the  industry  has  not  yet  been  devised,  although  the  Bureau  of  Fisheries 
believes  that  it  has  a  system  to  perpetuate  the  industry,  which  is  commercially 
feasible  and  profitable. 

From  1900  to  1905  the  sponge  fishery  seemed  on  the  whole  to  be  on  the  decline. 
It  was  revived  in  1905  by  resorting  to  diving,  which  was  done  by  Greeks,  who  before 
that  had  been  engaged  in  the  sponge  fisheries  in  the  Mediterranean.  In  1906  these 
Greeks  took  four  or  five  times  the  normal  quantity  of  sponges.  This  large  crop  was 
felt  to  be  destructive  and  was  followed  by  legislation  in  Congress  restricting  the  use 
of  the  diving  machines  and  forbidding  the  use  of  sponges  less  than  4  inches  in  diam- 
eter. (Stat.  L.,  vol.  34,  p.  313.)  As  a  result  of  these  measures,  the  product  of  the 
fishery  has  fallen  to  about  normal.  The  Bureau  of  Fisheries  figures  from  May  1, 
1911,  to  April  30,  1912,  are  $631,032.74  (partly  estimated). 

The  price  of  these  American  sponges  is  fixed  by  demand  and  supply  and  without 
any  reference  whatever  to  the  tariff,  because  the  imported  sponges  do  not  compete. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1912  the  import  of  sponges  from  the  Mediterranean  was  valued 
at  $218,954,  dutiable  at  20  per  cent,  while  the  imports  from  Cuba  were  $92,535,  dutiable 
at  20  per  cent  less  20  per  cent,  making  a  total  duty  collected  of  $58,596.40.  The 
importations  other  than  from  the  Mediterranean  are  almost  entirely  of  a  grade  not 
equal  to  the  Florida  sheep's  wool,  and  therefore  do  not  compete  with  that  American 
product. 

There  is  never  enough  of  the  American  product  to  supply  the  demand  for  it. 

Sponges  are  imported  into  the  United  States  in  two  forms,  absolutely  raw  material 
and  chemically  bleached,  and  the  manufacture  of  sponges  in  this  country  consists  in 
their  chemical  bleaching,  which  is  necessary  for  their  use  for  bath  and  toilet  purposes. 
The  Government  makes  an  annual  appropriation  to  patrol  and  protect  the  fisheries. 
For  this  year  the  appropriation  is  83,500. 

ARGUMENT. 

There  is  no  justification  for  the  duty  on  sponges  from  any  point  of  view.  It  is  not 
needed  to  protect  American  industry,  as  a  sponge  is  an  animal,  though  of  a  low  organism, 
and  no  way  has  as  yet  been  found  to  increase  its  production.  The  imported  sponges 
do  not  compete  with  the  American  sponges,  because  the  American  sponge,  being  of  a 
high  quality,  is  in  great  demand  for  carriage  and  auto  purposes  and,  being  conceded ly 
superior  to  the  imported  sponges,  the  use  of  the  latter  is  also  eliminated  in  the  particular 
lines  of  manufacture  and  sale  where  the  American  sheep's  wool  is  in  demand. 

The  duty  can  not  be  justified  as  a  revenue  measure,  as  the  rate  is  low,  the  foreign 
importation  small,  and  the  resulting  duty  inconsiderable. 

The  duty  can  not  be  justified  as  one  imposed  upon  luxuries.  The  sponges  used  in 
connections  with  carriages  and  automobiles  are  the  American  sheeps  wool,  while  the 


SCHEDULE  A.  429 

PARAGRAPH  70— SPONGES. 

distinctive  use  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Cuban  sponges  is  for  bath  and  toilet  purposes, 
which  are  not  luxuries. 

The  duty  is  indefeasible  in  that  it  is  concededly  a  tax  paid  by  the  consumer.  The 
price  of  the  imported  article  is  not  kept  down  at  all  by  the  compettition  of  the  do- 
mestic production,  because  the  domestic  production,  being  almost  entirely  of  a  higher 
grade,  does  not  compete.  Less  than  25  per  cent  in  value  of  the  American  product  is 
other  than  sheep's  wool. 

EXPORT  TRADE. 

The  imposition  of  the  duty  hampers  an  American  manufacturing  industry  in  its 
export  branches.  The  principal  competitor  of  the  United  States  in  the  manufacture 
of  sponges  is  Great  Britain.  There  is  no  import  duty  on  sponges  in  Great  Britain; 
consequently  the  British  manufacturer  gets  his  raw  material  at  least  20  per  cent  less 
than  his  American  competitor,  besides  usually  having  the  advantage  of  a  lower 
freight  rate,  and  on  exportations  to  Canada  and  the  Colonies  the  added  advantage  of 
a  preferential  tariff  in  those  British  Colonies.  The  American  manufacturers  of  sponges 
are  willing  to  have  the  tariff  entirely  taken  off  manufactured  sponges  if  at  the  same 
time  it  is  taken  off  raw  sponges,  as  they  know  the  result  of  that  will  be  to  permit  them 
to  increase  their  trade  with  South  America,  Australia,  and  other  places.  But  they 
can  not  compete  while  they  have  to  pay  a  20  per  cent  duty,  and  their  British  com- 
petitor pays  none. 

DRAWBACK   INEFFECTIVE. 

The  drawback  provisions  in  the  tariff  act  are  impracticable  so  far  as  the  sponge 
industry  is  concerned  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  It  is  difficult  and  almost  impossible  to  identify  a  chemically  bleached  sponge 
with  the  raw  material  from  which  it  was  made,  owing  to  changes  in  size  and  apparent 
structure. 

2.  Even  if  this  could  be  done,  the  process  would  be  so  difficult  as  to  increase  the  labor 
cost  300  per  cent. 

3.  It  is  impossible  to  establish  a  standard  of  loss  of  weight  as  each  and  every  sponge 
varies  in  loss  of  weight,  depending  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  fisherman  cleans 
each  sponge  at  the  fishery.    Many  different  degrees  of  cleanness  are  found  in  one 
boatload  of  sponges,  also  some  sponges  are  naturally  heavier  than  others  even  of  the 
same  grade.    These  and  other  difficulties  make  the  drawback  system  inoperative  so 
far  as  the  industry  of  chemically  bleached  sponges  is  concerned. 

It  being  shown  by  this  brief  statement  that  the  tariff  on  sponges  does  not  protect 
any  American  industry,  but,  on  the  contrary,  hampers  the  manufacturing  end  of 
the  industry,  that  it  is  not  justified  as  a  revenue  measure  because  of  the  low  duty, 
the  smallness  of  the  importations  and  the  consequently  inconsiderable  sums  col- 
lected, and  it  being  further  shown  that  the  duty  is  a  tax  payable  by  the  consumer 
of  a  necessity,  to  wit,  bath  and  toilet  sponges,  there  is  no  justification  for  the  duty 
remaining,  and  it  ought  to  be  entirely  removed. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

ALBERT  HART, 
Of  LEOUSI,  CLONNEY  &  Co. 


SPONGES    SHOULD    BE    ADMITTED    INTO    THE    UNITED    STATES    FREE    OF    DUTT    FOR    THE 

REASONS    STATED. 

First.  The  coast  of  Florida  is  the  only  sponge-producing  center  in  the  United  States. 
Its  average  yearly  yield  being  under  $300,000,  and  the  past  and  present  output  has  been 
and  is  now  inadequate  to  supply  the  demand. 

Second.  The  chief  American  sponge,  i.  e.,  sheep's  wool,  differs  so  materially  from 
the  imported  grades — in  that  its  quality  and  strength  are  vastly  superior — that  its 
staple  value  is  assured. 

Third.  Inasmuch  as  there  is  not  enough  American  sheep's  wool  ever  to  supply  the 
demands,  and  as  it  always  commands  a  very  high  price,  almost  equal  to  some  grades 
of  Mediterranean  honeycomb  sponges,  it  does  not  require  any  protection. 

Fourth.  The  American  sheep's  wool  for  carriage  and  auto  purposes,  and  for  other 
lines  of  manufacture,  is  generally  conceded  to  be  so  far  superior  to  the  imported  sponge 
that  the  latter's  use  in  those  particular  lines  is  almost  eliminated. 

Fifth.  The  value  of  sponges  is  determined  wholly  and  solely  by  supply  and  demand, 
and  sponges  being  a  product  of  nature  short  crops  invariably  occur  from  time  to  time, 


430  TARIFF  HEAEINQS. 

PABAGBAPH  79— SPONGES. 

due  largely  to  weather  conditions  during  the  fishing  season;  but  also  to  the  using  up 
of  former  fishing  grounds.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  American  sheep's  wool,  by 
reason  of  its  superiority  to  any  other  grade,  is  purely  a  distinctive  article  and  needs 
no  tariff  protection. 

Sixth.  The  Florida  market  is  controlled  by  the  fishermen,  who  refuse  to  sell  their 
wares  unless  a  satisfactory  price  is  obtained;  and  as  the  market  can  not  withhold  from 
buying,  due  to  the  inadequacy  of  supply  to  demand,  prices  are  always  held  to  a  profita- 
ble basis. 

Seventh.  Sheep's  wool  sponges  from  the  West  Indies,  being  of  inferior  quality  and 
shape,  have  distinctive  uses  apart  from  American  sheep's  wool. 

Eighth.  Mediterranean  sponges  have  a  distinctive  use,  mainly  for  bath  and  toilet 
purposes. 

Ninth.  The  annual  importation  of  sponges  for  the  past  six  years  averages  only 
$442,000;  therefore  the  revenue  derived  by  the  Government  is  of  little  importance. 

Tenth.  The  duty  on  foreign  goods  retards  commercial  progress  in  that  it  prevents 
the  free  use  of  the  article  by  the  multitude. 

Eleventh.  The  import  trade  could  be  largely  increased  by  the  removal  of  the  duty, 
without  in  the  least  degree  interfering  with  the  product  of  the  United  States. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

BLUMAUER  FRANK  DRUG  Co. 

(And  58  others). 


For  the  attention  of  Mr.  Acker. 

JANUARY  7,  1913. 
GENERAL  APPRAISER, 

Washington  Street,  New  York  City. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  writer  appeared  yesterday  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
with  reference  to  the  tariff  on  sponges.  During  the  course  of  his  examination  before 
that  body  the  honorable  chairman,  Congressman  Underwood,  read  into  the  record 
paragraph  79  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909,  which  has  reference  to  sponges,  and  he  interpreted 
same  that  manufactured  sponges  referred  to  chemically  bleached  products  used  for 
bath  and  toilet,  and  that  the  duty  levied  on  them  was  30  per  cent;  also  that  Govern- 
ment statistics  showed  that  but  $69  worth  of  manufactured  sponges  were  imported 
into  the  United  States  during  the  past  year. 

These  statements  the  writer  at  once  refuted,  claiming  that  the  $69  worth  of  goods 
referred  to  were  medicated  sponges  and  similar  products  used  by  the  medical  profes- 
sion, and  that  chemically  bleached  sponges  used  for  bath  and  toilet  purposes  were 
entered  under  the  20  per  cent  duty,  as  sponges  in  general,  and  not  as  manufactured. 

The  honorable  chairman  accorded  the  writer  permission  to  submit  proof  of  these 
facts.  I  shall  therefore  esteem  it  a  favor  if  you  would  kindly  inform  me  on  these 
points  in  order  that  I  may  be  able  to  transmit  your  reply  to  Congressman  Underwood. 

If  possible,  will  you  kindly  give  an  approximate  value  of  chemically  bleached 
sponges  annually  imported  into  the  United  States,  and  which  are  used  for  bath  and 
toilet  purposes.  Also  kindly  state  the  duty  that  is  levied  on  same,  so  that  I  may  have 
the  matter  entered  as  a  record  on  the  minutes  of  the  committee. 

Appreciating  an  early  reply,  I  remain,  with  thanks  for  your  courtesy, 
Very  truly,  yours, 

ALBERT  HART. 

JANUARY  10,  1913. 
The  COLLECTOR  OF  CUSTOMS, 

New  York,  Ar.   Y. 

SIR:  The  accompanying  letter  from  Messrs.  Leousi,  Clonney  &  Co.  (Albert  Hart), 
dated  January  7,  1913,  concerning  a  question  of  statistics  connected  with  manufac- 
tured sponges  is  referred  to  you  for  reply  direct,  the  following  being  stated  for  your 
fnformation : 

It  is  the  opinion  of  this  office  that  the  item  of  S69  for  manufactured  sponges  quoted 
from  the  statistical  record  of  imports  for  the  United  States  refers  to  sponge  tents  or 
fancy  figures,  Avhich  are  occasionally  made  from  sponges,  and  not  to  bleached  or 
cleaned  sponges,  as  all  sponges,  whether  natural,  cleaned,  or  bleached,  are  returned 
as  sponges  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph  79,  and  would  probably  be 
included  in  the  same  item  for  statistical  purposes.  Regarding  the  request  for  an 


SCHEDULE  A.  431 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

"approximate  value  of  chemically  bleached  sponges  annually  imported,"  it  is  impos- 
sible for  this  office  to  give  the  information  desired.     The  rate  of  duty  on  these  would 
also  be  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph  79. 
Respectfully, 

(Signed)  F.  A.  HIGGINS, 

Appraiser. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 
UNITED  STATES  CUSTOMS  SERVICE, 

New  York,  January  IS,  191S. 
Messrs.  LEOUSI,  CLONNEY  &  Co., 

39-41  Walker  Street,  New  York  City. 

SIRS:  Your  letter  of  the  7th  instant  (Albert  Hart),  addressed  to  the  General  Appraiser, 
relative  to  the  classification  of  chemically  bleached  sponges  for  duty,  and  the  annual 
importations  of  such  sponges  into  the  United  States,  has  been  referred  to  my  office 
by  the  United  States  appraiser,  accompanied  with  a  letter  from  his  department 
covering  all  the  points  of  your  inquiry  excepting  the  statistics  of  chemically  pleached 
sponges  imported. 

I  take  pleasure  in  forwarding  to  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  appraiser's  letter  referred 
to,  and  in  relation  to  the  statistics  of  chemically  bleached  sponges,  I  have  to  report 
that  no  distinction  is  made  of  the  character  or  condition  in  the  statistics  of  gponges 
dutiable  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph  79.  All  sponges  dutiable  at  the 
said  rate  and  under  the  said  paragraph,  whether  natural,  cleaned,  or  bleached,  are 
grouped  in  a  single  class,  and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  furnish  the  statistics  of  any 
particular  class  of  sponges  thus  imported. 

Respectfully,  H.  C.  STUART, 

Special  Deputy  Collector. 

BRIEF  OF  ALBERT  DAVIS,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  CONCERNING 

SPONGES. 

The  MEMBERS  OF  THE  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE. 

GENTLEMEN  :  Having  been  unavoidably  prevented  from  appearing 
before  you,  I  desire  to  submit  the  following  sworn  affidavit  relative 
to  paragraph  79,  which  I  think  should  be  included  in  the  free  list. 

Present  rate. — The  present  duty  on  sponges  is  found  in  paragraph 
79  of  the  Payne  law,  and  is  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  is  the  same 
rate  as  under  the  act  of  1897. 

First.  Because  the  American  waters  are  totally  unable  to  produce 
sufficient  sponges  to  supply  even  domestic  demands. 

Second.  The  American  product  being  superior  to  the  imported 
grades  for  automobile,  carriage,  and  all  other  washing  purposes,  is  not 
affected  by  foreign  products,  which  are  mainly  used  (the  better  grades) 
for  bath  and  toilet  purposes,  and  the  inferior  ones  by  painters,  glass- 
workers,  and  general  lines  of  manufacturers,  who  can  not  afford  to 
pay  the  high  prices  of  the  domestic  sheep's  wool. 

Third.  The  Florida  fishermen  regulate  their  prices  by  supply  and 
demand,  without  respect  to  the  imported  article.  And  they  have 
adopted  the  method  of  withdrawing  their  goods  from  the  market 
whenever  the  prices  bid  are  not  satisfactory.  The  present  prices 
average  about  $4  per  pound,  and  this  means  about  $5  per  pound  for 
the  most  desirable  sizes,  packed  and  landed  in  New  York. 

Fourth.  Due  to  the  inadequacy  of  supply  and  consequent  high 
prices  at  the  fisheries  many  dealers  resort  to  the  pernicious  practice 
of  adulterating  sponges  by  means  of  washing  them  in  a  solution  of 
glucose,  salt,  salts,  sand,  and  other  substances,  thus  increasing  the 


432  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  79— SPONGES. 

weight  and  consequently  reducing  the  cost.  This  enables  sponges  to 
be  apparently  sold  to  the  general  trade  at  from  50  to  75  per  cent 
below  the  regular  market  quotations.  As  for  instance :  An  unadulter- 
ated sponge  that  is  worth  from  $5.50  to  $6.50  per  pound  in  New  York 
(representing  an  advance  of  50  per  cent  within  the  last  three  years)  is 
sold  adulterated  all  over  the  country  at  from  $3  to  $4.50  per  pound, 
the  price  depending  upon  the  quantity  of  loaded  substance  injected 
into  the  sponge. 

Fifth.  The  American  sponge-fishing  industry  needs  no  protection, 
neither  does  the  manufacturing  or  bleaching  industry,  provided  the 
raw  sponges  are  admitted  free.  But  with  a  duty  on  the  raw  material, 
we  can  not  compete  with  the  foreign  houses  in  export  trade. 

Sixth.  It  is  manifestly  against  Democratic  and  Republican  prin- 
ciples to  allow  a  manufactured  article  to  be  admitted  into  the  United 
States  at  one  and  the  same  rate  as  raw  material,  when  an  American 
industry  employs  laborers  at  a  good  wage  to  turn  the  raw  material 
into  a  manufactured  article. 

Seventh.  Thirty  per  cent  duty  on  chemically  bleached  sponges  will 
protect  our  American  industry  and  at  the  same  time  produce  a  revenue 
almost  equal  to  that  proposed  by  a  duty  of  15  per  cent  on  all  grades 
of  sponges  as  provided  in  the  Underwood  bill. 

In  conclusion,  we  trust  that  we  have  clearly  shown  that  nature 
already  protects  the  Florida  industry,  enabling  the  Florida  fisher- 
men to  obtain  high  prices  for  their  products  without  respect  to 
imports,  therefore  we  hope  you  will  favorably  consider  our  plea, 
either  by  admitting  all  sponges  free  of  duty  or  by  placing  a  30  per 
cent  duty  on  chemically  bleached  sponges  and  admitting  unbleached 
sponges  free,  as  outlined  herein.  Either  provision  will  afford  us  an 
opportunity  to  successfully  compete  for  the  export  trade,  expand  the 
home  industry,  and  enable  us  to  reap  a  benefit  from  the  opening  of 
the  Panama  Canal. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

ALBERT  DAVIS, 
(Of  D.  Davis  &  Sons,  45  Warren  Street,  New  York  City,  N.  Y.) 

PARAGRAPH  80. 

Strychnia,  or  strychnine,  and  all  salts  thereof,  fifteen  cents  per  ounce. 
For  strychnia,  etc.,  see  Mallinckrodt  Chemical  Works  et  al.,  page  51. 

PARAGRAPH  81. 

Sulphur,  refined  or  sublimed,  or  flowers  of,  four  dollars  per  ton. 
For  refined  sulphur,  see  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  110. 

PARAGRAPH  82. 

Sumac,  ground,  three-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 
See  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  104. 

PARAGRAPH  83. 

Vanillin,  twenty  cents  per  ounce. 

See  Mallinrkrodt  Chemical  Works   et    al.,  page  51;  John  F.    Queeny,    page   82; 
and  Verona  Chemical  Co.,  page  72. 

The  CHAIRMAN-,  This  completes  the  hearing  on  Schedule  A,  and 
the  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  Wednesday,  January  8, 
1913,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 


SCHEDULE  B. 
EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 28  433 


SCHEDULE   B— EARTHS.    EARTHENWARE,    AND 

GLASSWARE. 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AXD  MEANS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  8  and  9,  1918. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Oscar  W.  Underwood 
in  the  chair. 

Present  with  the  chairman:  Messrs.  Harrison,  Shackleford,  Kitchin, 
James,  Rainey,  Dixon,  Hull,  Peters,  Palmer,  Ansberry,  Payne,  Dal- 
zell,  Hill,  Needham,  and  Longworth. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

PARAGRAPH    84. 

Fire-brick,  weighing  not  more  than  ten  pounds  each,  not  glazed,  enam- 
eled, ornamented,  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  one  dollar  and  twenty-five 
cents  per  ton;  glazed,  enameled,  ornamented,  or  decorated,  thirty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  weighing  more  than  ten  pounds  each  and  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  not  glazed,  enameled,  ornamented,  or  decorated 
in  any  manner,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  glazed,  enameled,  orna- 
mented, or  decorated,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  magnesite  brick, 
chrome  brick,  and  brick  other  than  fire-brick,  not  glazed,  enameled,  painted, 
vitrified,  ornamented,  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  twenty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem;  if  glazed,  enameled,  painted,  vitrified,  ornamented,  or  deco 
rated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  85. 

Tiles,  plain  unglazed,  one  color,  exceeding  two  square  inches  in  size,  four 
cents  per  square  foot;  glazed,  encaustic,  ceramic  mosaic,  vitrified,  semi- 
vitrified,  flint,  spar,  embossed,  enameled,  ornamented,  hand  painted,  gold 
decorated,  and  all  other  earthenware  tiles  and  tiling,  by  whatever  name  known, 
except  pill  tiles  and  so-called  quarries  or  quarry  tiles,  valued  at  not  exceeding 
forty  cents  per  square  foot,  eight  cents  per  square  foot;  exceeding  forty  cents 
per  square  foot,  ten  cents  per  square  foot  and  twenty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem;  so-called  quarries  or  quarry  tiles,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
mantels,  friezes,  and  articles  of  every  description,  composed  wholly  or  in 
chief  value  of  tiles  or  tiling,  sixty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  tiles  and  quarries,  see  W.  S.  Pitcairn,  page  584. 

TILES. 

THE  ATLAS  ROOFING  CO.  SUBMIT  BRIEF  ON  ROOFING  TILES. 

ATLAS  ROOFING  Co., 
Newburgh,  N.  Y.,  January  20,  191S. 
WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIRS:  We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  paragraph  No.  85  of  Schedule  B.  as 
it  relates  to  roofing  tiles. 

This  section  fixes  the  tariff  oil  roofing  tiles  at  4  cents  per  square  foot,  and  so  far  as  it 
applies  to  what  is  known  as  shingle  tile  it  is  an  unreasonably  exorbitant  tariff. 

For  instance,  we  have  been  importing  some  shingle  tile,  each  piece  of  which  is  6\ 
inches  by  1(H  inches,  making  a  total  area  of  68J  square  inches.  The  tariff  applies  to 
the  whole  surface  of  this  tile,  although  4  inches  by  6^  inches  is  exposed  to  the  weather 
only.  This  requires  a  duty  to  be  paid  on  68 J  square  inches  for  every  26  square  inches 

435 


436  TAEIFF    HEABESTGS. 

PARAGRAPH  85— TILES. 

which  is  actually  exposed  to  the  weather  on  the  roof.  In  other  words,  the  duty  is 
actually  $10.50  per  square  of  100  square  feet  on  the  roof.  This  is  about  twice  what  the 
American  tile  are  sold  for  at  the  factories. 

The  only  advantages  of  the  English  tile  are  the  better  range  of  color  and  shades,  and 
this  makes  these  tile  desirable  for  a  certain  class  of  buildings  and  considerable  revenue 
could  be  derived  from  importers  of  this  tile  if  the  duty  was  reduced  to  a  reasonable 
price. 

The  price  of  the  English  tile  at  port  of  exportation  is  about  the  same  as  the  price  of 
the  American  shingle  tile  at  the  factories  in  this  country.  To  the  export  price  of  the 
English  tile  must  be  added  the  heavy  freight  rate  and  the  tariff  of  10.5  cents  per 
square  foot  of  roof  covered,  the  breakage  which  is  sometimes  nearly  50  per  cent,  and 
the  cost  of  handling  at  the  import  point. 

This  brings  the  price  of  this  material,  when  delivered  to  the  railroad  station  nearest 
the  building  on  which  it  is  to  be  used,  when  same  is  within  100  miles  of  the  point  of 
import,  to  about  $30  per  square,  whereas  the  American  tile  can  be  delivered  to  the 
same  point  for  from  $9  to  $12  per  square. 

Considering  the  expensive  freight  to  this  country,  the  breakage,  which  is  often  exces- 
sive, the  expense  of  handling  at  the  import  point,  there  should  be  no  protection 
needed  for  the  domestic  manufacturer;  but  if  it  is  considered  advisable  to  maintain 
a  tariff  on  this  material,  it  should  be  reduced  to  a  reasonable  figure,  and  it  would  be 
more  nearly  fair  to  the  roofers  of  this  country  if  the  tariff  were  based  on  the  amount 
of  roof  which  the  tile  would  cover. 

You  will  note  by  referring  to  paragraph  No.  85  that  the  4  cents  per  square  foot 
applies  also  to  other  tile  which  lay  the  full  amount  of  surface  on  which  duty  is  placed, 
as  floor  tile,  wall  tile,  and  tile  for  other  similar  purposes  that  lay  without  any  lap, 
and  100  square  feet  of  tile  cover  a  little  more  than  100  square  feet  of  surface,  but  with 
the  roofing  tile  mentioned  in  this  letter,  262£  square  feet  are  required  to  cover  100 
square  feet  of  surface,  and  for  that  reason  the  present  method  of  fixing  the  tariff  is 
unfair  to  this  particular  industry. 

That  you  may  better  understand  the  material  involved,  we  are  sending  you  by 
parcel  post  one  sample  of  American  shingle  tile  and  one  sample  of  the  imported. 
You  will  note  that  the  American  shingle  tile  is  one  solid  color  over  the  whole  surface, 
while  the  imported  tile  has  a  certain  mottled  effect  which  softens  the  color  and  takes 
away  the  checkerboard  effect  produced  on  the  roof  by  the  domestic  tiles  when  they 
are  laid  in  several  different  shades  of  color. 

The  domestic  tile  can  be  secured  of  various  shades  of  red  continuing  through  shades 
of  brown  to  a  tile  that  is  almost  black.  The  same  shades  are  obtained  in  the  imported 
tile,  but  there  is  enough  variation  of  the  surface  of  each  tile  to  soften  the  coloring  and 
make  it  look  better  on  the  roof. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  reducing  or  removing  the  duty  would  cause  the 
American  manufacturers  to  make  a  tile  similar  in  coloring  to  the  imported,  but  at 
present  they  require  the  roofers  to  use  what  they  make  or  substitute  some  other 
material,  as  they  are  averse  to  increasing  the  variety  of  tile  now  on  the  market. 

If  you  desire  any  further  information  in  regard  to  this  matter,  we  will  be  very  glad 
to  furnish  same  so  far  as  we  may  be  able.  We  are, 

Very  respectfully,  ATLAS  ROOFING  Co., 

H.  A.  DANIEL,  President. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MEYER  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

PARAGRAPH  85. 

Assesse_s  duty  on  quarries  or  quarry  tiles  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  in  accordance 
with  section  18  the  same  duty  is  assessed  on  the  crates,  barrels,  etc.,  containing  same, 
in  which  they  are  packed  for  protection  from  injury  during  transportation^  The 
sizes  _of  these  quarries  are  9  by  9  by  1|  and  6  by  6  by  1.  They  are  used  for  flooring, 
interior  and  exterior  work.  It  is  impossible  to  bring  these  goods  forward  from  the 
works  loose,  as  the  breakage  and  damage  by  handling  is  excessive,  and  furthermore  the 
transportation  lines,  railroad  and  steamship,  will  not  handle  them  loose. 

Bringing  them  forward  in  large  crockery  crates  which  weighed  from  1,000  to  1,500 
pounds  demonstrated  that  breakage  through  jarring  was  a  large  percentage.  Packing 
in  barrels,  it  was  also  found,  did  not  overcome  thisT  breakage,  and  finally  experiment 
proved  that  packing  16  pieces  of  the  9  by  9  in  a  little  crate  and  48  to  54  pieces  of 
fi  by  6  overcame  the  difficulty;  that  the  breakage  was  insignificant,  and  these  packages 
many  years  ago  became  the  unit  of  sale. 


SCHEDULE  B.  437 

PABAGRAPH  85— TILES. 

It  is  necessary  to  make  this  statement  to  prepare  you  for  the  following: 

The  average  cost  of  the  9  by  9  and  6  by  6  is  $15.50  per  thousand.  The  average  cost 
of  packing  same  in  crates,  carriage  from  the  manufacturers'  works  to  Liverpool,  and 
freight  by  steamer  from  Liverpool  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston  is  $19.50 
and  irrespective  of  any  United  States  duty  is  126$  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  quarries 
at  the  manufacturers'  works.  The  average  rate  of  duty  which  is  paid  on  the  quarries 
and  the  packing  is  over  67  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  manufacturers  works. 

The  American  manufacturer  of  similar  goods,  if  made,  is  therefore  protected  to  the 
extent  of  193$  per  cent  on  the  basis  of  said  American  manufacturer  delivering  his  goods 
on  rails  or  by  boat  from  his  works  at  the  initial  competing  point,  an  Atlantic  port.  To 
all  points  west  of  the  seaboard  the  American  manufacturer  is  further  protected  to  the 
extent  of  the  freight  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

By  the  excessive  duty  imposed  by  the  Payne- Aldrich  bill  the  purchasing  power  of 
the  dollar  of  the  ultimate  consumer  is  greatly  reduced. 

We  appeal  for  an  abolition  of  the  assessment  of  duty  on  the  value  of  the  crates  or 
coverings  to  protect  these  goods  from  injury  during  transportation,  and  a  reduction  of 
the  duty  from  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  either  a  specific  duty  of  one-half  to  three- 
fourths  cent  per  square  foot  or  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  to  25  per  cent. 

We  submit  the  above.  We  wrote  asking  to  be  heard  by  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  on  January  6,  1913,  but  received  no  reply. 

THE  MEYER  Co., 
2 53  Broadway,  New  York  City. 

JANUARY  9,  1913. 

BRIEF  OF  ADOLPH  GRANT  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

ADOLPH  GRANT  &  Co., 

New  York,  December  27,  1912. 
The  CLERK  OF  THE  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  We  desire  to  submit  to  your  honorable  body  the  following  brief, 
regarding  duties  on  tiles  which  will  come  up  for  your  consideration  on  January  8. 

There  is  at  the  present  time  a  combination  among  the  tile  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States.  These  manufacturers  being  the  following:  Alhambra  Tile  Co.,  New- 
port, Ky.;  American  Encaustic  Tile  Co.,  Zanesville,  Ohio;  Architectural  Tile  Co., 
Maurer,  N.  J.;  Beaver  Falls  Tile  Co.,  Beaver  Falls,  Pa.;  Cambridge  Tile  Co.,  Cov- 
ington,  Ky.;  Grueby  Tile  &  Faience  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Mosaic  Tile  Co.,  Zanesville, 
Ohio;  The  Empire  Floor  Tile  Co.,  Zanesville,  Ohio;  National  Tile  Co.,  Anderson, 
Ind.;  Robertson  Art  Tile  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J.;  Matawan  Tile  Co.,  Matawan,  N.  J.; 
Old  Bridge  Tile  Co.,  Old  Bridge,  N.  J.;  C.  Pardee  Works,  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.;  Star 
Encaustic  Tile  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  Trent  Tile  Co.,  Trenton,  N.  J.;  United  States 
Encaustic  Tile  Works,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

This  combination  was  formed  about  four  months  ago,  for  the  purpose  of  regulating 
the  price  on  tiles  made  in  this  country.  Prior  to  this  combination  we  could  buy  a 
satisfactory  white  glazed  wall  tile  at  15  cents  a  square  foot;  but  since  the  combination, 
we  are  charged  18  cents  a  square  foot.  Prior  to  the  combination  we  bought  the  vit- 
reous floor  tiles,  known  as  ceramics,  sizes  being  1  inch  and  1J  inch,  shapes  being 
square,  round,  and  hexagon,  for  the  sum  of  10  cents  a  square  foot.  To-day  we  are 
charged  14  cents  for  the  same  tiles  and  15  cents  per  square  foot  for  the  1J  inch.  Prior 
to  the  combination,  we  bought  2-inch  in  size  vitreous  tiles  at  16  cents  a  square  foot, 
and  to-day  we  are  paying  22  cents  for  the  same  tiles. 

I  have  found,  upon  investigating,  no  advance  in  the  cost  of  material,  nor  has  labor 
advanced.  The  present  duty  on  glazed  tiles,  less  than  40  cents  per  square  foot,  is 
8  cents  a  foot,  which  makes  the  cost  of  tile  brought  into  this  country,  buying  the  tile 
at  the  cheapest  possible  market  in  Europe,  and  including  the  duty,  24  cents  a  foot. 
These  tiles  compare  with  the  tiles  sold  by  the  American  manufacturers,  as  above 
stated,  at  18  cents  a  foot  and  are  known  as  Standards.  The  American  manufac- 
turers have  also  made  a  tile  known  as  selected  tile  at  22 J  cents  a  square  foot. 

It  is  my  contention  that  the  American  manufacturers  can  make  tiles  in  this  country 
as  cheap  as  they  are  made  in  England,  as  tile  sold  formerly  (before  this  last  combina- 
tion of  the  manufacturers)  at  15  cents  a  square  foot  compared  favorably  with  the  tile 
bought  in  England  at  16  cents  a  foot,  on  which  we  had  to  pay  8  cents  duty  as  well  as 
freight. 

The  tile  industry  in  this  country  would  not  suffer  in  the  least  if  the  entire  duty 
were  removed .  The  only  sufferers  would  be  the  excessive  profits  to  the  manufacturers. 


438  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

I  further  believe  that  if  the  duty  could  be  reduced  to  2  or  3  cents  per  square  foot  on 
tiles  that  cost  less  than  25  cents  a  square  foot  in  Europe,  that  importation  would  be 
greatly  increased.  This  argument  holds  good  with  the  rest  of  the  tiles  above 
referred  to. 

In  addition  to  the  pool  formed  by  these  manufacturers  to  sell  their  wares  at  a  given 
price  (and  it  is  impossible  to  get  either  one  of  them  to  deviate  from  it)  they  also  have 
made  their  rules  for  payment,  and  should  a  tile  dealer  purchase  tiles  from  either 
manufacturer  and  not  pay  within  the  prescribed  time,  no  tile  manufacturer  in  the 
United  States  is  allowed  to  sell  this  individual  tile  until  he  has  paid  his  bill,  even 
though  the  tile  dealer  may  have  a  just  cause  for  refusing  to  pay  the  bill. 

These  manufacturers  have  their  headquarters  in  Beaver  Falls,  Pa.,  where  the 
books  of  every  tile  manufacturer  in  the  United  States  are  kept,  and  they  are  kept 
complete  in  every  detail.  The  expense  for  paying  this  is  born  by  the  manufacturers. 
The  amount  of  payment  toward  supporting  this  undertaking  is  dependent  upon  the 
amount  of  business  done  by  the  various  manufacturers,  those  whose  sales  are  largest 
paying  the  greatest  fee  into  the  pool. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this  pool  or  combination,  because  if 
it  is  an  unlawful  one  the  Government  can  decide  it;  but  I  am  interested  in  having 
the  duties  on  tiles  lowered  or  completely  abolished,  because  I  believe  it  will  be  to 
the  best  interests  of  our  Government  and  to  the  advantage  of  the  greatest  number  of 
American  people. 

I  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  substantiate  orally  before  your  honorable  body  any 
statement  made  by  me  in  the  above  brief,  and  beg  to  remain  at  your  command. 

Very  respectfully  submitted. 

ADOLPH  GRANT. 

PAEAGEAPH  86. 

Eoman,  Portland,  and  other  hydraulic  cement,  in  barrels,  sacks,  or  other 
packages,  eight  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds,  including  weight  of  barrel  or 
package;  in  bulk,  seven  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds;  other  cement,  not 
otherwise  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

CEMENT. 

STATEMENT  OF  ROBERT  W.  LESLEY,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 
AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  PORTLAND  CEMENT  MANUFAC- 
TURERS. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  a  brief  here 
which  I  would  like  permission  to  file.  First,  I  do  not  want  to  appear 
under  false  colors.  Mr.  Wilson  is  the  secretary  of  the  association 
in  whose  behalf  I  appear.  I  am  the  president  of  the  American 
Cement  Co. 

The  brief  you  have  before  you  explains  very  fully  the  position  of 
this  industry  with  relation  to  the  tariff.  In  dealing  with  the  matter 
1  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  is  one  of  the  great 
mineral  industries  of  the  United  States,  of  the  nonmetallic  minerals 
that  rank  up  near  copper  and  salt.  It  is  a  large  employer  of  labor 
and  a  large  producer  of  materials.  It  produced  last  vear  about 
79, 000, 000  barrels.  There  is  a  capital  of  $150,000,000.  It  employed, 
according  to  1909  statistics,  about  35,000  people— about  30,000  then 
and  now  about  35,000  to-day — and  in  all  there  are  close  to  175,000 
to  'JOOjOOO  people  dependent  on  the  industry. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a  national  industry;  it  is  not  localized;  it 
is  all  over  the  United  States.  Practically  every  State  in  the  Union 
has  cement  works.  Cement  can  be  made  almost  any  place  where 
clay  and  limestone  is  found.  In  looking  over  the  list  of  your  hon- 
orable committee  when  1  came  in  to-day  I  found  out  that  out  of 
21  members,  17  have  cement  works  in  tHe  States  which  they  repre- 


SCHEDULE  B.  439 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

sent.  So  it  speaks  very  fairly  for  the  general  distribution  of  the 
industry. 

In  reference  to  the  duty  on  this  material,  it  has  been  maintained 
practically  uniformly  for  a  number  of  years.  It  has  a  very  low  duty, 
ranging  to-day  about  20  per  cent.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  appear- 
ing before  almost  every  Ways  and  Means  Committee  since  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Mills  tariff  in  1886.  In  that  tariff  as  prepared,  in  the  Mc- 
Kinley  bill  as  prepared,  in  the  Wilson  bill  as  prepared,  and  adopted 
in  the  Dingley  bill  and  in  the  Payne  bill,  this  duty  has  been  main- 
tained practically  uniformly  all  the  way  through. 

My  argument  is  to  this  point,  that  a  duty  to  be  proper  and  right 
must  be  just  and  must  be  fair.  To  test  tnat,  if  you  will  take  the 
trouble  to  look  at  just  two  or  three  figures  in  the  little  pamphlet  that 
I  have  given  you,  you  will  find  this  duty  rather  conforms  to  three 
important  elements. 

First ,  has  it  increased  the  industry  ?  I  have  been  connected  with 
the  industry  since  an  output  of  50,000  barrels  was  made,  and  for  the 
year  1912  there  has  been  an  output  of  practically  80,000,000  barrels. 

Mr  KITCHIN.  How  many  pounds  ? 

Mr  LESLEY.  Three  hundred  and  eighty  pounds  to  the  barrel,  of 
Portland  cement,  which  is  practically  to-day  the  only  cement 
recognized. 

The  industry,  in  its  growth  to  that  extent,  has  spread  all  over  the 
United  States,  and,  as  I  have  already  stated,  it  is  a  national  industry. 

The  next  test,  I  think,  in  considering  a  duty,  is,  has  the  consumer 
been  injured,  and  has  the  result  of  the  duty  tended  to  increase  or  to 
lower  prices? 

If  you  will  kindly  turn  to  the  diagram  on  the  outside  of  the  pam- 
phlet, you  will  see  a  chart  that  has  practically  meant  disaster  to  a 
very  important  industry.  The  tariff  has  enabled  us  to  grow,  but, 
unfortunately,  as  you  will  see,  the  prices  have  gone  down  year  after 
year,  until  the  table  there  shows  practically  the  lowest  prices  in  the 
history  of  the  business. 

The  third  test,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  test  of  what  has  happened  to 
the  laboring  man.  The  labor  in  the  industry,  in  the  face  of  this 
enormous  reduction  in  price,  has  been  constantly  increasing,  so  that 
the  figures  for  1890,  where  lime  and  cement  workers  are  grouped, 
show  $430  a  year,  while  the  figures  for  1909,  the  last  obtainable, 
show  S576.  In  the  Lehigh  district,  where  I  am  particularly  inter- 
ested, the  labor  was  $1.10  per  day  in  1890  and  to-day  it  is  from 
$1.40  to  $1.50.  I  claim,  therefore,  that  on  these  three  big  broad 
principles  this  duty  is  fairly  justified  and  fairly  sustained  and  is  a 
very  reasonable  and  just  duty. 

The  next  question  is  what  would  result  in  taking  off  the  duty.  I 
am  frank  to  say  that  in  a  great  many  of  the  works  located  in  the 
center  of  the  United  States  they  would  not  be  affected  because 
cement  is  a  commodity  weighing  380  pounds  to  the  barrel,  and 
foreign  cement  would  not  reach  the  great  inland  markets  of  the 
country.  They  would  reduce  the  prices  of  those  work,  by  lessening 
the  ultimate  distribution  of  cement  from  eastern  works  as  it  goes 
west,  but  it  would  not  immediately  destroy  the  industries  of  the 
Middle  West. 


440  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  great  industries  of  the  Southern  States 
would  be  vitally  injured  by  the  importation  of  this  heavy  commodity 
in  vessels  coming  to  seaports  in  ballast  to  get  cargoes  of  cotton;  that 
is,  in  other  words,  seaports  which  are  not  importing  cement  per  se 
but  are  great  outbound  seaports  in  the  shipping  of  cotton.  Those 
ports  would  receive  a  shipment  of  cement,  and  I  think  it  would 
seriously  injure  the  industry  in  the  South. 

I  believe  at  the  same  time  that  results  on  the  Pacific  coast  would 
be  analogous  where  the  great  grain  shipments  would  furnish  out- 
bound cargoes  to  vessels  on  return  trips  around  Cape  Horn. 

As  to  the  question  of  what  enters  into  cement,  if  you  will  take  the 
trouble  to  IOOK  on  page  5  you  will  find  there  it  is  practically  all  labor. 
What  is  not  labor  is  coal,  which  in  turn  represents  other  labor.  I 
should  say  in  the  manufacture  of  a  barrel  or  cement  very  nearly  90 
per  cent  is  labor  or  coal.  Practically  it  is  a  labor  proposition  and 
labor  is  the  element  that  will  be  injured  by  any  change  in  the  duty. 

As  to  the  result  to  the  industry  as  a  whole  from  its  great  growth 
and  by  this  great  reduction  in  prices,  if  you  will  turn  to  page  7  you 
will  see  a  series  of  sad  monuments  to  the  cement  industry.  There 
are  about  32  failures  out  of  110  works,  and  I  think  1  or  2  failures  have 
been  recorded  since  this  little  pamphlet  was  prepared. 

In  other  words,  the  industry  while  it  has  had  this  remarkable 
growth  and  furnished  this  remarkable  material,  has  been  most 
unsuccessful  and  most  lacking  in  prosperity,  so  far  as  the  money 
return  has  been  concerned,  in  the  last  few  years. 

The  advantage  to  the  community  at  large  of  the  development  of 
this  industry  under  this  equitable  duty  has  been  to  make  school- 
houses  fireproof,  theaters  fireproof,  buildings  fireproof,  houses  for 
cheap  rents  fireproof;  to  make  old  streets  safe  with  good  paving, 
instead  of  wooden  pavements  and  brick  pavements;  to  develop  to-day 
the  great  modern  road  on  which  motors  travel  and  which  has  come 
to  mean  a  very  great  aid  to  health;  the  development  has  enabled  us 
to  replace  old  bridges  with  permanent  material.  I  believe  all  in  all 
the  development  of  this  great  industry  under  this  duty  has  been  of 
the  greatest  advantage  to  the  country. 

I  leave  this  matter  in  the  hands  of  this  committee  with  the  same 
feeling  of  confidence,  the  same  feeling  of  fairness  and  justice  with 
which  it  has  been  left  with  every  committee  that  has  dealt  with  it, 
and  I  feel  perfectly  confident  that  you  will  consider  the  recommen- 
dations. 

There  is  a  little  loose  memorandum  in  reference  to  white  cement, 
which  is  produced  in  a  small  way,  but  which  is  a  growing  industry 
in  connection  with  Portland  cement.  I  trust  you  will  consider  that 
paragraph  and  enable  them  to  grow  as  has  grown  this  great  big 
industry  which  I  represent  here. 

I  thank  you  verv  much. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  much  capital  do  vour  companies  represent? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  About  $150,000,000,  I  would  say.  They  have  not 
beon  summarized  of  late. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  production  for  1912?  What  was  the 
American  production  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  American  production  was  about  79,000,000  of 
barrels. 


SCHEDULE   B.  441 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Worth  how  much? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Worth  about  $66,000,000.  You  will  find  that  on 
page  6  of  my  brief. 

Mr.  KITCHEN.  How  many  companies  are  engaged  in  this  business  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  the  American  Association  of  Portland  Cement 
Manufacturers,  which  I  represent  here,  represents  some  70  companies, 
between  60  and  70  companies. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  A  few  years  ago  something  appeared  in  the  papers 
to  the  effect  that  the  Standard  Oil  Co.  owned  a  large  part  of  the 
stock  of  the  cement  industries. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  know  of  any  ownership  of  that  kind.  Many 
years  ago  John  Rockefeller,  jr.,  owned  an  interest  in  the  Northampton 
Portland  Cement  Co.,  but  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  appears  among  this 
list  of  bankrupt  companies. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  do  not  some  of  the  large  stockholders,  some  of 
the  largest  stockholders  in  the  Standard  Oil  Co.,  own  large  blocks  of 
stock  in  the  cement  companies  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  know  of  any  except  this  one  interest  and  the 
interest  of  the  Lockharts  of  Pittsburgh  in  the  Alpha  Cement  Co., 
up  on  the  Delaware  River,  near  Easton. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Are  there  not  directors  of  the  Standard  Oil  Co. 
who  are  directors  of  the  cement  companies  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  None  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  capital  stock  is  outstanding  in  these 
companies,  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  I  would  be  unable  to  give  you.  They  are  mostly 
under  State  charters  and  would  appear  there. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  To  which  company  do  you  belong  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  belong  to  the  American  Cement  Co.  of  New  Jersey. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  When  was  it  organized  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  It  was  organized  in  1899,  I  think,  or  1900. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  was  the  paid-in  capital  when  it  was  first 
organized  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  $2,100,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  paid-in  capital  now  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  It  is  the  sarre,  and  I  am  sorry  to  add  that  it  is  in  the 
hands  of  receivers. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  After  it  gets  out  of  the  hands  of  the  receivers  what 
company  are  the  stockholders  going  in  then?  What  company  do 
they  contemplate  organizing? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  They  are  going  to  reorganize  this  company  with  an 
additional  capital. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Sometimes  it  is  a  pretty  -good  thing  to  go  into  the 
hands  of  receivers,  to  reorganize. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  am  awfully  sorr^  to  say  I  am  the  principal  stock- 
holder, and  I  wish  I  could  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  do  not  say  that  as  to  your  company,  but  some- 
times it  is  profitable  to  get  in  the  hands  of  receivers  and  to  reorganize, 
is  it  not? 

You  produced,  you  say,  866,000,000  worth  of  cement  last  year — 
that  is,  the  manufacturer's  price  last  }Tear? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  the  report  to  the  Geological  Survey. 


442  TABIIT   HEABOTGS. 

i 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  There  was  not  imported  a  half  of  1  per  cent  of  Ameri- 
can consumption. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  imports  to  this  country  were  less  than  $125,000. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  produced  $66,000,000  worth? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  exported  in  competition  with  all  the  nations  of 
the  world  more  than  $5,000,000  worth? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  am  going  to  correct  you  right  there.  We  exported 
about  three  millions,  and  the  great  part  of  tnat  went  to  the  Panama 
Canal;  but  we  are  an  exporting  nation.  I  want  to  agree  with  you 
there. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  According  to  the  Treasury  figures,  you  exported  last 
year  over  $5,000,000  worth. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  want  to  disagree  with  you,  and  I  will  take  it 
for  granted  you  have  the  right  figures. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  probably  mean  you  exported  three  millions  out- 
side of  the  Panama  Canal  contract. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  can  you  export  this  in  competition  with  all  the 
nations  if  the  other  nations  make  it  cheaper  and  sell  it  cheaper  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  answer  to  that  is,  cement  is  a  very  heavy  com- 
modity and  it  is  largely  a  freight  question.  In  other  words,  take  a 
ship  sailing  from  Hamburg  to  get  a  cargo  of  cotton  at  Savannah.  It 
might  not  get  any  outbound  cargo,  and  would  therefore  have  to  go  in 
ballast.  It  therefore  gets  a  cargo  which  loads  and  unloads  itself, 
this  heavy  cement,  instead  of  ballast. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  a  barrel  of  cement  weighs  just  as  much  going 
across  the  water  as  coming. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Quite  right,  and  that  is  met  in  this  way.  For  instance 
suppose  a  shipment  from  here  to  South  Africa  or  to  one  of  the  South 
American  countries.  Our  exports  to  these  countries  are  light  in 
weight.  In  other  words,  we  are  exporting  commodities  that  take  up 
room,  but  do  not  weigh  heavily  like  agricultural  implements  or  auto- 
mobiles, or  hardware,  various  tools,  typewriters,  and  that  sort  of 
thing.  They  take  up  ship  room,  but  do  not  weigh  heavily. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  wTeigh  as  much  coming  back  as  they  do  going. 
"What  country  exports  cement  to  this  country? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Belgium,  and  Germany  some. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Which  is  the  greatest  exporting  country? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  would  say  Germany  is  the  greatest  to-day. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Which  is  the  next  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  England  is  next. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  A  weight  of  100  pounds  will  weigh  as  much  coming 
from  Germany  here  as  it  does  going  from  here  to  Germany. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Quite  right. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Do  not  we  ship  some  to  England? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Xo;  we  do  not  ship  any  there.     Maybe  I  am — 

Mr.  KITCHIX  (interposing).  I  expect  you  are  mistaken  about 
that. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Xo.  I  want  to  be  perfectly  fair  with  you.  I  agree 
with  you  on  the  question  of  weight.  But  let  me  make  this  clear.  If 


SCHEDULE   B.  443 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

a  ship  was  starting  from  Hamburg  to  get  a  cargo  of  cotton,  that  ship 
figures  on  the  round  trip.  If  the  rates  outbound  on  cotton  for  Ham- 
burg are  good,  that  ship  can  afford  to  go  over  in  ballast.  If  at  the 
time  she  is  starting  in  ballast  somebody  offers  her  a  cargo  of  cement, 
which  loads  and  unloads  itself,  the  ship  will  carry  that.  That  is 
the  answer  as  to  the  100  pounds  from  the  other  side. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  us  take  a  ship  in  the  regular  trading  com- 
panies, going  to  Brazil  or  South  Africa — it  has  a  cargo  of  bulky 
things  such  as  I  say,  automobiles,  agricultural  implements,  and  so 
forth,  which  are  bulky,  but  do  not  weigh  heavily,  and  that  ship 
wants  ballast.  That  ship  in  turn  will  pick  up  a  cargo  of  cement  for 
the  same  reason  as  did  the  Hamburg  ship.  And  while  100  pounds 
is  the  same,  it  has  a  lot  of  trade  difference. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  see.  But.  you  American  cement  producers  seem  to 
strike  it  lucky.  You  are  more  luckv  about  these  ships  than  these 
foreigners,  because  you  exported  40  times  more  than  they  imported. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  quite  right. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  that  you  really  get  an  advantage  in  imports  over 
the  foreigners.  Of  course  you  get  these  advantageous  ships. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  We  do,  and  I  hope  to  see  the  exports  grow.  I  am 
very  frank  about  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  really  sell  this  cement  cheaper  to 
foreigners  than  you  do  to  our  own  home  folks  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  I  do  not  believe  it  could  be 
sold  lower  than  it  was  sold  last  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  ship  to  Canada;  that  you 
export  a  great  deal  to  Canada  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Not  so  much  now.  We  have  gone  there  in  years 
gone  by. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  have  shipped  to  Canada  in  competition  with 
England,  which  has  a  third  preferential  duty  rate  over  us. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  overcome  that  33|  tariff  preferential  in  favor 
of  England,  and  then  undersell  England  in  Canada? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  you  can  do  that,  what  fear  do  you  have  of  England 
or  Germany  or  any  other  country  shipping  across  the  water  this  heavy 
article  and  coming  into  competition  with  you  and  running  you  out  of 
business  here  in  your  own  home  market  if  we  put  cement  on  the 
free  list  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  point  I  want  to  meet  you  on  is  this:  It  is  a  great 
big  geographical  question.  Let  us  imagine  a  man  out  at  Winnipeg 
wanting  cement.  There  are  works  in  Iowa  and  works  out  in  Spokane 
and  in  that  territory.  Those  people  have  a  great  deal  lower  rate  into 
Winnipeg.  As  the  price  to  the  consumer  is  the  mill  price  plus  the 
freight,  he  would  get  that  cheaper  from  America,  plus  the  duty,  at  a 
lower  rate  than  he  would  get  cement  coming  from  England,  which 
would  come  into  Quebec  or  Montreal  and  have  to  pay  the  rates  across 
the  continent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  we  are  exporting  cement  to  eastern  Canada. 
Would  the  advantage  be  in  our  favor  to  the  extent  of  the  freight 
and  also  to  the  extent  of  this  reduction  in  the  tariff  rates  which 
England  has  over  us  ? 


444  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 
Mr.  LESLEY.  In  many  cases- 


Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  I  mean  in  cement  cases. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  In  cement,  yes;  that  is  what  I  am  talking  about. 
In  many  cases  the  rate  on  a  barrel  of  cement  to  somewhere  in  many 
parts  of  our  country  represents,  taking  a  dollar  as  the  unit,  a  dollar 
for  cement  and  a  dollar  for  freight;  the  freight  rates  are  so  high  on 
this  heayy  commodity  that  the  most  of  it  is  freight.  For  that  reason 
these  mills  have  been  located  in  different  centers. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  know  what  the  tariff  is  on  cement  in  Canada  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  it  was  reduced  lately.  My  recollection  is 
that  it  is  about  40  cents. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Was  it  not  recently  entirely  suspended  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  No;  I  think  it  was  a  reduction  owing  to  a  shortage. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  tariff  rate  is  higher  in  Canada  than  here  on  ce- 
ment, is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  yet  you  can  sell  to  her  consumers  there,  paying  a 
higher  tariff  rate  than  we  have,  selling  in  competition  with  England, 
which  has  a  33£  per  cent  preferential  in  her  favor — actually  under- 
selling England  in  Canada.  Do  you  really  think  you  will  need  any 
protective  tariff  to  protect  you  against  England  coming  here  in  your 
own  territory  I 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  would  answer  you  this  wise 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  Will  you  answer  it  yes  or  no? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  will  answer  you  no  and  then  I  will  say  yes,  on  the 
seaboard.  I  said  at  the  beginning  of  my  remarks  I  did  not  think  the 
interior  of  our  country  was  threatened  by  this  importation. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  All  right. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  And  as  to  this  Canadian  importation,  if  you  will 
pardon  me  for  a  minute,  where  we  have  been  able  to  get  cement  into 
Canada  has  all  been  far  oil'  from  the  seaboard  and  in  the  interior  of 
the  continent.  I  want  to  meet  you  perfectly  fairly.  In  the  interior 
I  think  you  are  dead  right;  I  do  not  want  to  qualify  it.  But  on  the 
seaboard  I  think  conditions  are  different. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  All  right.  On  the  seaboard  do  you  not  sell,  out  of 
every  $100,  more  than  $99  of  cement  which  is  used  on  the  seaboard; 
899  out  of  every  S100  worth  of  cement  that  is  consumed  on  the 
seaboard  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes;  with  reference  to  the  north,  but  not  with  refer- 
ence to  the  south. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  whole  United  States  did  not  consume  more  than 
S12o. 000  worth  of  cement  from  the  foreigners  in  1912. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  If  you  will  look  at  this  table  you  will  see  in  a  panic 
year,  when  times  were  hard,  as  in  1903— 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  How  about  1912?  I  have  the  figures 
here. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  You  have  some  very  good  figures.  I  am  glad  to  talk 
it  over  with  you. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  American  Cement  Association  gave  you  your 
figures  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  No.  All  our  figures  are  official,  from  Government 
reports.  I  did  not  deem  it  fair  to  take  any  figures  which  were  not 
official  in  coming  before  you. 


SCHEDULE   B.  445 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  You  say  the  foreigner  makes  it  cheaper  than 
you.  Suppose  you  have  no  freight  to  pay;  how  could  you  sell  it? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  on  this  heavy  commodity  it  is  absolutely  a 
question  of  freight. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  I  say,  suppose  you  have  your  freight  for  noth- 
ing. If  it  be  true  they  could  manufacture  cheaper  than  you  could  do 
it,  how  did  you  sell  your  products  in  foreign  countries  in  competition 
with  the  foreign  products  that  are  made  cheaper  than  you  make  yours  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  answer  to  that  would  be  this :  We  had  a  par- 
ticular freight  rate  at  this  particular  point,  and  their  freight  rate  at 
that  particular  point  might  be  another  one  entirely.  I  think  it  is 
purely  a  freight  question. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Canada  used  to  be  one  of  our  competitors  ?  Is  it 
any  longer  a  competitor  in  the  American  market  ? 

'Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  think  so,  except  right  up  north,  in  the  Lake 
Champlain  district. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Not  much  now,  probably,  but  you  made  it  so  cheap 
you  ran  Canada  out  of  business.  Last  year  she  only  exported  here 
about  three  or  four  hundred  dollars'  worth. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  think  she  had  any  business  to  come  over  the 
line  here. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  To  be  accurate,  she  only  exported  into  this  country, 
in  competition  with  your  $66,000,000  worth  of  cement  last  year, 
$261  worth;  and  up  to  three  or  four  years  ago  she  used  to  export 
here  several  thousand  dollars'  worth. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes;  but  it  was  a  drop 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing) .  And  you  ran  her  out  of  the  American 
market. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  It  is  but  a  drop  in  the  bucket. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  right;  I  do  not  blame  you. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  point  I  am  trying  to  argue  is  that  in  bad  times, 
in  panicky  years,  then  this  i«  used  as  a  dumping  ground  for  foreign 
cement.  And  with  the  advantages  they  have  in  cargoes  in  ballast, 
at  a  great  many  seaports,  I  believe  it  would  be  a  serious  injury  to 
the  industry.  But  I  do  not  want  to  disguise  the  fact  it  is  a  pretty 
lusty  industry;  it  has  grown  and  is  growing.  But  a  good  many 
have  gone  broke  in  connection  with  it,  mj'self  included. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Some  people  would  grow  poor  in  the  cement  industry 
if  they  ran  up  against  American  competition,  with  a  tariff  of  $2  in- 
stead of  20  cents. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  am  the  oldest  manufacturer  in  the  business  and  I 
thought  I  knew  my  business;  but  I  could  not  compete  with  the  low 
prices  that  have  been  made  for  the  last  several  years. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  represent  this  bankrupt  concern  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  this  association  of  successful  concerns  got  the 
bankrupt  concern  to  come  here  to  represent  them? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  fair  argument. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  I  am  asking  you. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  answer  to  that  is  that  I  had  been  before  this 
committee  previously,  and  they  felt  that,  knowing  a  number  of  the 
gentlemen  here  and  having  appeared  before,  I  might  be  more  familiar 


446  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

with  the  subject.  And  I  really  felt  complimented  in  being  asked  to 
appear,  in  the  face  of  my  adversity. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  the  truth  about  the  business  here  is  that  this 
rate  of  8  cents  per  100  pounds  did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  your 
company  going  into  bankruptcy? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  would  not  say  that.  I  want  to  be  fair.  I  think  it 
is  American  competition  which  has  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it. 
I  think  it  would  be  even  more  severe  if  foreign  cement  were  permitted 
to  come  in  as  ballast  at  seaport  points. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Did  the  United  States  buy  all  the  cement  for  the 
Gatun  Dam,  on  the  Panama  Canal,  from  American  manufacturers? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Practically  all.  We  supplied  some.  The  balance 
was  supplied  by  the  Atlas  Cement  Co. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Operating  along  the  Mississippi  River? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  No;  operating  at  Northampton. 

Mr.  PALMER.  It  comes  from  my  district. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Was  any  supplied  by  the  company  at  Hannibal,  Mo.  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  do  not  think  so.  They  are  connected  with  the  same 
company. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Did  the  Government  get  machinery  from  foreign 
companies  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes,  sir:  very  much  cheaper.  I  think  the  best  illus- 
tration of  the  sort  of  rates  that  have  been  made  in  this  industry  is 
exemplified  in  that  contract,  and  it  absolutely  answers  any  question 
of  collusion.  On  the  basis  of  bids  being  for  4,500,000  bushels,  the 
difference  between  the  bid  of  the  company  that  got  the  contract  and 
the  next  lowest  American  bidder  was  about  SI, 000, 000.  So  there  was 
quite  a  big  room  for  guessing,  because  on  about  4,000,000  bushels  the 
difference  was  $1,000,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Were  there  foreign  bidders  on  that  contract? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  a  few. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Were  there  many  American  bidders? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  My  recollection  is  there  were  four  or  five  American 
bidders,  and  this  big  difference  existed. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  contract  was  originally  for  four  and  a  half  million 
barrels,  and  was  afterwards  increased  to  about  6,000,000  barrels? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  From  the  same  company? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  was  the  price  per  barrel  under  that  contract? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  can  only  give  you  newspaper  reports  of  the  contract. 
It  was  somewhere  about  65  cents  at  the  mill. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  is  the  present  prevailing  price  for  the  cement? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  price  last  year  was  around  55  to  60.  It  has  now 
gone  up  to  80. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  was  the  prevailing  price  at  the  time  the  con- 
tract was  made  with  the  Government '( 

Mr.  LESLEY.  The  prevailing  price  then  was  about  80  cents. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  it  was  about  15  cents  more. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  state  that  importations  increased  in  panicky 
times. 


SCHEDULE   B.  447 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  year  in  recent  times  illustrates  that  increase  in 
importations  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  in  1903  there  was  quite  a  large  importation, 
and  that  it  has  continued  off  and  on. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  large  an  importation  was  there  in  1903  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  My  recollection  is  there  were  about  3,000,000  barrels. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  call  that  a  large  importation? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  It  was  a  large  importation  in  proportion  to  the  out- 
put at  that  time.  It  was  about  ten  or  eleven  millions,  something  of 
that  kind,  as  I  recollect. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  1905  the  output  was  about  26,000,000  as  against 
imports  of  about  1,000,000. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes;  but  things  began  to  mend  a  little  then. 

Mr  PALMER.  But  they  have  been  coming  down  steadily  since  1905  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  present  importation  amounted  to  something 
over  $200,000,  coming  from  where? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  would  say  as  a  general  proposition  that  the  Germans 
supplied  the  largest  quantity  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Where  does  it  go  to  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  It  must  necessarily,  except  in  special  cases,  go  to 
seaports  like  Savannah  or  Charleston,  or  some  of  the  ports  which  have 
outbound  cargoes.  Some  may  go  to  the  Pacific  coast. 

Mr.  PALMER.  There  is  nothing  special  about  a  foreign  cement 
which  would  take  it  inland,  over  the  American  cement?  Cement 
is  cement,  in  other  words. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  should  say  that  is  so,  except  hi  very  rare  cases.  I 
know  of  some  German  brewers  who  a  few  years  ago  used  a  certain 
German  brand;  they  still  adhere  to  their  first  love,  and  we  can  not 
convince  them  they  are  wrong. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Does  that  condition  exist  inland  and  on  the  seaboard  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Inland  to  some  extent,  but  the  occasions  are  excep- 
tional. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  is  the  prevailing  foreign  price  in  cement 
to-day  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  in  Germany  it  is  between  5  and  6  marks.  I 
would  not  like  to  give  you  the  present  quotation.  Their  prices  to-day 
are  based  on  the  wooden  package,  and  ours  are  based  on  the  bag 
package.  We  base  it  really  on  bulk. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Their  prices  are  higher  than  ours,  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  the  same  conditions  prevail  in  the  cement 
industry  as  in  the  steel  industry.  The  trade  has  had  a  very  good 
year  and  prices  are  higher. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Has  that  not  been  generally  true  for  four  or  five  years 
in  the  cement  business  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  No.  Some  years  ago  we  could  buy  it  cheaper  there 
than  here. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  was  hi  1903. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  No;  since  then.  I  think  along  in  1907  and  1908  we 
could  buy  it  cheaper.  Things  were  very  hard  over  there  and  there 
was  a  great  surplus. 


448  TARIFF    HE  A  KINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  not  the  real  reason  why  there  is  no  importation  of 
the  foreign  article  that  it  sells  over  there  for  more  money  than  it  sells 
over  here,  and  that  even  aside  from  the  freight  proposition  it  could 
not  come  in  unless  they  shipped  it  below  their  usual  prices  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  that  is  a  fact.  As  I  have  saia  before,  I  think 
it  is  in  panicky  years,  when  we  would  need  the  labor  most  and  need  to 
give  men  employment  most,  that  it  would  be  more  serious. 

Mr.  PALMER.  We  are  not  going  to  have  any  more  panics  for  at  least 
four  years. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  refer  to  the  continuing  panic  from  1907  to 
about  1911. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Do  I  what  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  refer  to  the  panic  that  continued  from  1907  to 
1911? 
•  Mr.  LESLEY.  I  just  hate  to  think  about  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  From  November,  1907,  to  1910  was  the  panic  to 
which  you  refer  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  There  was  a  panic  along  there. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  was  a  very  serious  panic,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  have  great  hopes  you  will  agree  with  all  these  other 
committees  to  give  us  a  chance,  to  give  the  community  at  large  a 
chance,  all  to  be  very  prosperous  without  any  more  of  these  panics. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  This  bidding  which  recently  occurred  in  connection 
with  the  Panama  Canal  contract  was  real  competitive  bidding? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  understand  so.  The  Government  got  it  very  ad- 
vantageously. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  Between  manufacturers  here  and  manufacturers 
abroad  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Of  course,  manufacturers  here  were  compelled  to 
disregard  the  tariff  to  bid  against  manufacturers  abroad  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  that  is  a  free  zone  in  Panama  for  our  cement. 
I  think  there  is  no  duty  on  this  cement  going  into  Panama. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  am  not  talking  about  that  part  of  it.  Of  course, 
there  is  no  duty  on  it  when  it  is  shipped  into  the  Panama  Canal 
Zone.  But  I  say,  when  competing  with  German  firms,  or  other  for- 
eign firms,  you  disregarded  the  tariff  and  competed  with  them  on 
the  basis  as  if  there  were  no  tariff  wall  between  this  country  and 
Germany  against  foreign  manufacturing  competition,  and  in  that 
competition  the  American  manufacturers  won  without  the  assistance 
of  the  tariff  at  all  ?  Is  not  that  true  ?  And  the  largest  sale  made  in 
the  last  hundred  years  was  made  as  the  result  of  that  free  competitive 
bidding  by  American  manufacturers,  who  went  in  and  who  could 
not  have  been  protected  in  that  bidding  by  the  tariff  at  all. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  am  going  to  answer  that  in  this  way:  In  the  free- 
zone  belt.  American  goods  intended  for  use  in  the  canal,  went  in  free, 
and  goods  from  abroad  paid  a  duty. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  But  YOU  were  trying  to  sell  to  this  Government  and 
foreign  manufacturers  were  trying  to  sell  to  this  Government.  There- 
fore you  met  on  a  iield  with  no  tariff  wall  between  you  and  you  bid 
the  lowest  and  secured  the  greatest  cement  contract  ever  made.  Is 
not  that  true  ? 


SCHEDULE   B.  449 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Maybe  I  have  not  got  the  thing  quite  right  in  my 
mind.  I  want  to  see  if  I  am  right.  We  bid  without  any  duty  on 
the  commodity.  The  foreigner  bid,  having  to  pay  a  duty  on  the 
commodity.  We  beat  him  out  by  reason  of  that  advantage  which 
we  had. 

Mr.  RAINET.  Did  the  Government  compel  foreigners  furnishing 
cement  to  the  zone  to  pay  a  duty  to  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes;  that  is  the  law.  I  think  that  law  came  out  in 
some  of  these  Scotch  dredges  that  came  in.  I  think  they  wanted  a 
special  act  admitting  them.  I  think  that  answers  your  question, 
and  I  am  very  sure  I  am  right  about  the  law,  because  I  remember 
the  clause  very  well. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  With  reference  to  these  dredges,  is  it  not  true  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  threatened  to  purchase  the  dredges 
abroad  and  disregard  our  navigation  laws  and  everything  else  ? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  he  did.  I  think  they  passed  a  special  act 
exempting  it,  as  I  recollect.  But  the  general  law  covering  the 
Panama  ('anal  Zone  does  give  a  preferential  to  American  manufac- 
turers. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  With  quality  and  cost  considered?     That  is  the  law? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  recollection  about  it. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Was  it  the  result  of  the  preferential  that  you  got  the 
cement  contract? 

Mr.  LESLEY.  I  think  there  was  a  little  difference  in  cost,  I  think 
only  a  few  cents  in  cost,  between  the  American  bid  and  the  lowest 
foreign  bid;  and  the  quality  was  fully  equal. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  there  any  further  questions?  If  not,  that 
will  conclude  your  statement,  Mr.  Lesley. 

Mr.  LESLEY.  Thank  you  very  much  for  your  attention. 

ARGUMENT  ON   BEHALF   OF  THE   ASSOCIATION   OF  AMERICAN   PORTLAND  CEMENT 

MANUFACTURERS. 

[On  Schedule  B:  Earths,  earthenware,  and  glassware.  Subheid,  paragraph  86. "  Cement,  lime,  and  plaster." 
"Roman,  Portland,  and  other  hydraulic  cement,  in  barrels,  sacks,  or  other  packages,  8  cents  per  hun- 
dred pounds,  including  weight  of  barrel  or  package;  in  bulk,  7  cents  per  hundred  pounds;  other  cement, 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem."] 

Your  petitioner,  the  Association  of  American  Portland  Cement  Manufacturers, 
which  is  a  voluntary  association  for  the  dissemination  of  information  in  connection 
with  the  uses  of  Portland  cement,  and  which  represents  in  its  membership  nearly  90 
per  cent  of  the  output  of  the  United  States,  presents  the  following  argument  in  support 
of  the  retention  of  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  Portland  cement. 

HISTORY  OF  THE   DUTY. 

In  connection  with  the  duty  on  Portland  cement  it  will  be  noted  in  the  paragraph 
above  quoted  that  the  rate  of  duty  upon  cement  not  enumerated  is  on  the  basis  of 
20  per  cent,  and  the  following  table,  showing  the  importation?,  the  values,  the  duty 
collected,  and  the  rate  of  duty  in  percentages,  shows  the  average  percentage  of  duty 
upon  Portland  cement  for  the  last  nine  years  to  have  been  about  22  per  cent. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 29 


450 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 
Cement  tariff  statistics,  1903-1911. 


Calendar  year. 

Official  statistics. 

Calculated  results. 

Pounds  im- 
ported. 

Value. 

Total  duty 
collected. 

Per  cent. 

1903                  

927.180,235 
418,.%!,  431 
338,630,739 
882,  284,  967 
802,491,371 
331,850,000 
171,034,800 
109,760,000 
62,113,600 

$3,027,111 
1,382,913 
1,102,041 
2,950,268 
2,637,424 
1,  178,  105 
636,085 
371,550 
240,163 

$741,  744.  18 
334,849.14 
270,904.59 
705,827.97 
641,993.10 
265,  480.  00 
136,  827.  84 
87,808.00 
48,690.88 

24.4 
24.2 
24.5 
23.8 
24.3 
22.5 
21.5 
23.4 
20.3 

1904                      

1905                                  

1906                

1907                           

1908            

1909                     

1910                                 

1911                                            

By  reference  to  the  Tariff  Commission  of  1882,  to  the  proposed  Mills  bill,  to  the 
Wilson  bill,  and  to  the  McKinley  and  Dingley  bills,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  duty  on 
cement  has  been  considered  more  as  a  revenue  than  as  a  protective  duty,  and  that  in 
all  the  period  referred  to  the  rate  has  been  practically  maintained  at  or  near  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  thus  indicating  that  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  to  do  with  the  prepara- 
tion of  tariff  bills  in  the  past  twenty-odd  years  the  duty  on  cement  was  considered 
reasonable  and  proper,  and  one  which  had  as  its  basic  reasons  its  fairness,  its  modera- 
tion, and  its  revenue-raising  powers.  In  considering  the  question  of  the  duty  on 
Portland  cement,  it  is  respectfully  urged  that — 

THIS   INDUSTRY  IS  A   NATIONAL   ONE. 

In  this  connection,  by  a  reference  to  the  " Cement  Industry  in  the  United  States  in 
1911,"  Department  of  the  Interior,  United  States  Geological  Survey,  prepared  by  Mr. 
Ernest  F.  Burchard,  it  will  be  noted  that  there  were  in  existence  during  the  past 
year  cement  works  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Michigan,  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Alabama,  Georgia,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  Colorado,  Texas, 
Utah,  California,  Washington,  Kentucky,  Iowa,  Oklahoma,  Tennessee,  Maryland,  and 
Montana.  In  addition  to  this,  in  the  1910  report,  in  referring  to  the  occurrence  of 
raw  material  for  cement  making,  it  Ls  shown  that  the  materials  for  the  manufacture 
of  Portland  cement  can  be  found  in  every  State  and  Territory  of  the  Union.  This  table 
illustrates  clearly  the  national  chaiacter  of  the  industry,  and  the  fact  that  in  asking  for 
its  preservation  and  maintenance  in  its  present  condition  no  geographical  lines  nor 
geographical  interests  are  making  the  request,  but  a  national  association  of  practically 
all  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  representing  an  industry  capable  of  develop- 
ment in  every  State  and  Territory  of  the  Union. 

In  view  of  the  consideration  shown  at  the  hands  of  your  honorable  committee  it 
would  seem  necessary  to  show  the  operations  of  the  Dingley  Act  in  connection  with 
the  present  rate  of  duty  as  tested  under  reasonable  economic  conditions,  fair  to  both 
producer  and  consumer.  Therefore  the  arguments  are  grouped  under  several  heads, 
as  follows,  showing  the  operation  of  the  present  law: 

(a)  The  growth  of  the  American  cement  industry. 

(b)  The  reduction  of  prices  to  the  consumer. 

(c)  The  continuous  importation  of  foreign  cements. 

(d)  The  labor  conditions  in  the  cement  industry. 

(e)  The  general  benefits  to  the  country. 
(/)  No  "trust"  in  the  cement  industry. 

THE    GROWTH   OF   THE    AMERICAN    CEMENT    INDUSTRY. 

The  following  table  shows  the  growth  of  the  American  Portland  cement  industry 
since  the  passage  of  (lie  Dingley  bill,  together  with  the  value  of  the  production  in 
dollars.  These  figures  are  from  the  reports  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey. 


SCHEDULE  B. 
PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 


451 


Year. 

Barrels. 

Value. 

Year. 

Barrels. 

Value. 

1897     

2,  677,  775 

$4,315,891 

1905  

35,  246,  812 

$33,  245,  867 

1898  

3,  692,  284 

5,970,773 

1906  

46,463,424 

52,466,186 

1S99  

5,652,266 

8,074,371 

1907  

4S.  7S5.390 

53,992,551 

1900  

8,  482,  020 

9,280,525 

1908  

51.072,612 

43  547  679 

1901  

12,711,225 

12,532,360 

1909  

64,991,431 

52,858,354 

1902  

17,230,644 

20,864,078 

1  1910  

76,549,951 

68,205,800 

1903               

22,  342.  973 

27,713,319 

,  1911  

78  528  637 

66  248  817 

1904        

26,  505,  881 

23,355,119 

THE    REDUCTION   OF  PRICES   TO   THE   CONSUMER. 

The  appended  table,  showing  the  average  prices  of  Portland  cement  as  gathered 
by  the  I  nited  States  Geological  Survey  from  1870  to  1911,  is  most  instructive,  and  shows 
that  since  the  year  1890  the  price  has  been  practically  cut  in  half.  Since  the  year  1897, 
the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  bill,  the  price  has  fallen  over  47  per  cent,  or  from 
$1.61  to  $0.844  per  barrel. 

Average  prices  of  Portland  cement,  1870-1911. 

Average  price. 

1870-1880 $3.00 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1885-1888 1.95 

1889 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897  (year  of  Dingley  bill) 1.61 

THE    CONTINUOUS   IMPORTATION   OF   FOREIGN    CEMENT. 

It  will  be  noted  that  during  the  last  few  yeare  the  importation  of  foreign  cements 
ha&  been  materially  decreased . 

This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  here  in  the  United  States  a  productive  capacity 
of  at  least  20  per  cent  over  and  above  the  capacity  for  consumption.  Under  these 
conditions  32  mills  have  gone  through  receivers'  hands  in  the  last  four  years  and 
have  either  reorganized  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  their  stockholders  great  loss  or 
are  idle. 

They  are  as  follows:  1,  The  Alabama  Portland  Cement  Co.;  2,  Alma  Cement  Co.; 
3,  The  Alpena  Portland  Cement  Co. ;  4,  American  Cement  Co.  of  New  Jersey;  5,  Buck- 
eye Portland  Cement  Co.;  6,  Buckhorn  Portland  Cement  Co.;  7,  Castalia  Portland 
Cement  Co.;  8,  Egyptian  Portland  Cement  Co.;  9,  Elk  Cement  &  Lime  Co.;  10,  Em- 
pire Portland  Cement  Co.;  11,  Hecla  Portland  Cement  Co.;  12,  Marengo  Portland 
Cement  Co.;  13,  Wayland  Portland  Cement  Co.;  14,  Northampton  Portland  Cement 
Co.;  15,  Omega  Portland  Cement  Co.;  16,  Western  Portland  Cement  Co.;  17,  York 
Portland  Cement  Co.;  18,  Atlantic  Portland  Cement  Co.;  19,  Atlantic  &  Gulf  Portland 
Cement  Co.;  20,  Blanc  Stainless  Cement  Co.;  21,  Bonner  Brand  Portland  Cement  Co.; 
22,  Great  Western  Portland  Cement  Co.;  23,  Lily  White  Cement  Co.;  24,  Monarch 
Portland  Cement  Co.;  25,  Norfolk  Portland  Cement  Corporation;  26,  Penn-Allen  Ce- 
ment Co. ;  27,  Piedmont  Portland  Cement  &  Lime  Co. ;  28,  Santa  Cruz  Portland  Cement 
Co.;  29,  Standard  Portland  Cement  Corporation;  30,  United  States  Cement  Co.;  31, 
Altoona  Portland  Cement  Co.;  32,  Tola  Portland  Cement  Co. 


price. 
.3.00 

1898  

Average  price. 
$1  62 

2.50 

1899  

1  43 

2.01 

1900  

1  09 

2.15 

1901  

99 

2.10 

1902  

1.  21 

1.95 

1903  

1  24 

1.67 

1904  

88 

2.09 

1905  

96 

2.13 

1906  

1  13 

2.11 

1907  

1  11 

1.91 

1903  

85 

1.73 

1909  

813 

1.60 

1910  

891 

1.57 

1911  

844 

1.61 

452  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

'  » 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

LABOR   CONDITIONS   IN   THE    CEMENT  INDUSTRY. 

For  the  information  of  the  committee  the  process  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement 
should  be  briefly  explained.  Limestones  and  clays,  limestone,  marls  and  clays,  or 
other  similar  argillaceous  or  calcareous  materials  are  mined  or  quarried  and  trans- 
ported to  heavy  crushing  and  grinding  machinery,  where,  under  the  process  most 
commonly  in  use  (the  dry  process),  they  are  ground  to  powder  of  a  fineness  so  great 
as  to  practically  pass  a  100-mesh  sieve.  This  fine  powder  is  subsequently  fed  into 
rotary  kilns  from  60  to  150  feet  in  length,  where  it  is  calcined  to  incipient  vitri- 
faction  by  means  of  pulverized  coal,  gas,  or  oil  flames  entering  the  kiln  at  the  oppo- 
site end  to  that  in  which  the  powder  is  fed.  The  material  which  is  thrown  from  the 
kiln  is  in  the  shape  of  small  nodules  of  great  hardness  and  is  called  Portland  cement 
clinker.  This  clinker  is  again  crushed  and  ground  in  various  forms  of  iron  ball  or 
tube  mills  to  a  fineness  of  from  90  to  95  per  cent  on  a  100-mesh  sieve.  It  is  then  put 
into  bags  or  barrels  and  is  the  Portlana  cement  of  commerce.  To  produce  a  single 
barrel  of  Portland  cement  very  nearly  1,100  pounds  of  material  have  to  be  ground, 
of  which  between  600  and  700  pounds  is  the  raw  material  from  which  the  carbonic- 
acid  gas  is  expelled  in  the  kiln,  and  380  pounds  is  the  Portland  cement  of  commerce. 
In  addition  to  this,  nearly  200  pounds  of  coal  are  used,  of  which  one-half  has  to  be 
ground  to  an  equal  fineness  for  the  calcination  and  production  of  every  barrel  of 
cement. 

From  the  above  statement  it  should  need  no  argument  to  convince  this  committee 
that  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement  is  essentially  a  labor  proposition.  It  is  labor 
in  the  quarry,  labor  in  the  raw  material,  labor  in  the  coal-grinding  plant,  labor  in  the 
finishing  mill,  and  labor  in  the  packing  house,  and  what  is  not  actual  labor  in  and 
around  a  cement  mill  is  practically  labor  in  coal,  which  represents  so  large  a  proportion 
of  the  weight  of  the  finished  product;  in  point  of  fact,  nearly  50  per  cent  thereof. 

For  the  most  part  the  labor  in  and  around  cement  mills  is  ordinary  day  labor  and 
compares  with  the  labor  in  and  about  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron.  It  averages,  so  far 
as  ordinary  day  labor  is  concerned,  from  $1.40  to  $2  per  day,  according  to  the  section 
of  the  country  where  mill  is  located.  The  higher-priced  men  get  from  $3  to  $5  per 
day,  according  to  ability. 

Comparisons  of  labor  cost  in  this  country  and  in  Europe  have  been  repeatedly  made, 
and  as  a  broad  proposition  it  can  be  safely  stated  the  labor  in  Europe  is  on  an  average 
from  30  to  40  per  cent  less  than  the  labor  cost  per  barrel  of  Portland  cement  in  the 
"United  States.  Coal,  on  the  other  hand,  is  cheaper  here  than  abroad. 

The  labor  employed  in  the  Portland  cement  industry  is  scattered  all  over  the  coun- 
try, there  being  nearly  100  works  in  operation,  in  almost  every  State  of  the  Union,  and 
any  action  your  committee  will  take  to  destroy  so  important  an  industry  as  this  by  any 
radical  reduction  of  duty  will  affect  labor  conditions  seriously  in  many  States  of  the 
Union,  especially  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  a  large  proportion  of  the  Port- 
land cement  of  the  country  is  made.  This  is  also  the  case  in  the  State  of  Kansas, 
which  is  another  large  producer,  and  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  where  the  industry 
is  just  beginning  to  find  a  foothold. 

THE    GENERAL    BENEFITS    TO    THE    COUNTRY. 

A  reference  to  almost  any  scientific  magazine,  an  examination  of  almost  any  news- 
paper, will  show  the  growth  of  the  American  Portland  cement  industry  under  the 
present  law  and  the  development  of  many  new  uses  of  cement.  From  the  erection  of 
the  skyscraper  of  from  15  to  20  stories  in  height,  constructed  entirely  of  concrete,  to 
the  building  of  the  small  house  of  the  workingman.  concrete  is  finding  a  field  of  the 
greatest  value  and  use  to  the  American  public.  Apart  from  its  permanent  character, 
its  fire-resisting  qualities  make  it  the  ideal  building  material.  In  sanitary  qualities 
and  in  its  economical  virtues  in  reducing  fire  risk  concrete  is  becoming  recognized  as 
the  building  material  of  the  future.  Not  only,  however,  is  this  material  coming  into 
use  in  the  matter  of  dwellings  and  office  buildings,  but  also  for  factory  construction, 
the  building  of  railway  stations,  the  fabrication  of  silos,  grain  elevators,  and  other 
work,  such  as  telegraph  poles,  railway  ties.  etc.  In  addition,  it  has  found  many  uses 
of  great  value  for  both  farmer  and  manufacturer.  While  the  fence  post,  the  hitching 
post,  the  motor  foundation,  the  silo,  the  pigsty  on  the  farm,  owe  their  permanence 
and  strength  to  concrete,  so  also  the  ornamental  garden  seat,  the  decorated  pergola, 
the  font  in  the  public  and  private  gardens  and  parks  have  the  same  origin.  Necessity 
certainly  was  the  mother  of  invention  when,  with  the  rapidly  approaching  failure  of 
the  lumber  supply  of  the  United  States,  as  indicated  by  the  forestry  reports,  the  de- 


SCHEDULE   B. 


453 


PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

velopment  of  this  great  Portland  cement  industry  was  made  possible  by  the  laws  that 
have  governed  the  importation  of  foreign  cements.  Thus,  by  the  introduction  and 
development  of  the  uses  for  this  new  building  material,  the  deforestation  of  the  United 
States  has  possibly  been  postponed  for  many  years. 

One  of  the  newer  uses  of  concrete  is  in  road  construction.  Not  only  do  most  engi- 
neers recognize  concrete  as  the  best  known  material  for  foundations,  but  during  the 
last  few  years  no  top  surfacing  is  used,  the  concrete  taking  the  wear.  The  first  cost  is 
very  little  greater  than  macadam,  and  the  fact  that  little  or  no  repairs  are  necessary 
permits  money  ordinarily  expended  for  repairs  to  be  used  in  improving  more  miles  of 
road. 

In  concluding  this  branch  of  the  argument,  it  may  be  stated  that  the  American 
cement  industry  is  also  finding  foreign  markets.  The  table  of  production,  imports, 
and  exports  (below),  covering  the  last  11  years,  indicates  clearly  that  the  industry,  BO 
far  as  the  world's  markets  are  concerned,  is  not  being  stifled. 

The  danger  of  admitting  foreign  cement  at  any  reduced  duty  is  a  danger  to  pros- 
perity. In  times  of  world  panics  America  is  made  the  dumping  ground  of  Portland 
cement  by  European  nations,  and  this  is  particularly  the  case  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Portland  cement  forms  one  of  the  most  important  articles  of  ballast  for  foreign  -vessels 
coming  to  this  country  for  cargoes  of  the  products  of  the  soil.  The  points  of  heaviest 
imports  of  foreign  cement  are  Charleston,  Savannah,  Pensacola,  Mobile,  New  Orleans, 
and  Galveston,  where  foreign  vessels  come  for  outbound  cotton  cargoes.  The  same 
applies  to  the  Pacific  coast,  where  not  only  Belgian,  German,  and  English  cements 
come  in  in  ballast  in  vessels  coming  for  grain  cargoes,  but  also  Chinese  and  Japanese 
cement  made  by  the  cheap  labor  of  the  Orient;  and  all  this  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
within  a  few  miles  of  San  Francisco  there  are  four  cement  works  in  actual  operation. 

Two  other  plants  have  lately  been  built  in  Washington,  north  of  Seattle,  and  these 
plants  have  also  felt  the  inroads  of  foreign  cement. 

About  two  years  ago  10  of  the  largest  cement  plants  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
were  consolidated  under  a  single  management.  A  lowering  of  cement  duty  might 
enable  them  to  dump  cement  into  the  northern  border  States  at  prices  ruinous  to  the 
United  States  mills  now  supplying  that  district.  The  mills  in  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Washington  would  be  seriously 
affected,  and  as  the  mills  in  these  States  produce  to-day  67  per  cent  of  the  output  of 
the  whole  country,  it  can  be  readily  seen  what  a  detrimental  effect  such  a  reduction 
would  have  on  the  entire  industry. 

Table  showing  production,  imports,  and  exports,  in  barrels. 


1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1006 

Domestic  production  

17,230,644 

22,342,973 

26,505,881 

35,246,812 

46,463,424 

Imports                             

1,903,023 

2,251,969 

968,410 

896,845 

2,273,493 

Total  available  supply  

19,193,667 

24,594,942 

27,474,291 

36,143,657 

48,736,917 

Exports  

340,  821 

285,463 

774,940 

897,686 

583,299 

Apparent  consumption 

13,852,846 

24,  309,  479 

26,699,351 

35,245,971 

48,153,618 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

Domestic  production  

48,785,390 

51,072,612 

64,991,431 

76,549,951 

78,528,637 

rmports                                    

2,033,403 

842,  121 

443,  R88 

300,863 

164,679 

Total  available  supply  

50,  SIS,  853 

51,914,733 

65,435,319 

76,856,814 

78,693,307 

Exports  

900,550 

846,528 

1,056,922 

2,475,957 

3,135,409 

Apparent  consumption          

49,  918,  303 

51,068,205 

64,  378,  397 

74,380,857 

75,557,898 

NO    'TRUST     ix  THE  CEMENT  INDUSTRY. 


In  conclusion,  it  is  but  fair  to  say  to  the  committee  that  there  is  no  trust  in  the 
Portland  cement  industry,  and  the  course  of  prices  during  the  last  few  years  indi- 
cates this  very  clearly.  The  best,  reason  for  this  is  stated  by  Mr.  Edwin  C.  Eckel, 
in  his  report  on  the  cem%nt  industry  for  1906,  Department  of  the  Interior,  United 
States  Geological  Survey,  where,  on  page  11,  he  states: 


454  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

"  Perhaps  the  most  marked  feature  of  American  economic  history  during  the  last 
decade  has  been  the  manner  in  which  industry  after  industry  has  become  consoli- 
dated in  control,  so  as  to  approach  more  or  less  closely  to  monopoly.  This  has  been 
particularly  well  marked  in  the  iron  and  steel  industries,  and  it  is  worth  consider- 
ing how  far  a  similar  evolution  is  likely  to  affect  the  cement  industry.  At  present 
the  cement  industry  is  the  most  individualistic  of  the  larger  branches  of  manufacture . 
No  'trust,'  nor  even  any  approach  to  a  monopoly,  is  now  in  existence,  newspaper 
statements  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  and,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  the  nature 
of  the  cement  industry  renders  it  impossible  that  any  such  large  degree  of  consoli- 
dation of  interest  can  take  place  as  to  result  in  permanently  or  unfairly  high  prices 
for  the  product. 

"When  the  history  of  both  successful  and  unsuccessful  'trusts'  is  examined,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  only  way  in  which  a  permanent  monopoly  can  be  secured  and 
retained  by  any  consolidation  is  by  the  control  of  the  supply  of  raw  material,  by 
the  absolute  control  of  basic  patent!,  or  by  the  control  of  transportation.  Any  trust 
which  disregards  this  history,  and  is  content  with  simply  consolidating  all  or  most 
of  the  existing  manufacturing  plants,  is  in  line  for  disaster;  for  supplies  of  raw  mate- 
rials being  still  available  for  outsiders,  the  first  advance  in  prices  will  be  the  signal 
for  the  erection  of  competitive  plants.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  raw  materials 
can  be  cornered,  or  processes  can  be  monopolized,  or  transportation  can  be  controlled, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  competition.  This  experience,  though  unobserved  or  dis- 
regarded a  decade  ago,  is  now  generally  borne  in  mind. 

"The  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the  future  of  the  cement  industry  is  obvious 
enough.  If  there  is  any  possibility  that  one  large  cement  corporation  can  acquire 
control  of  most  of  the  available  deposits  of  cement  material  in  the  United  States,  it 
will  be  possible  to  form  a  real  American  'cement  trust,'  to  defy  competition,  and 
to  raise  prices  to  an  unwarranted  level.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to 
form  such  a  corner  in  cement  rock  or  in  cement-making  processes,  or  permanently 
to  control  transportation,  it  will  be  impossible  for  any  consolidation  to  raise  prices 
permanently  above  the  normal. 

"On  careful  consideration  of  the  matter,  it  will  be  seen  that  only  one  answer  is 
possible.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  more  than  20  per  cent  of  the  entire  area  of  the  United 
States  is  underlain  by  raw  materials  out  of  which  cement  could  be  made  if  prices 
were  forced  high  enough.  The  Standard  Oil  Co.,  the  United  States  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, and  the  United  States  Government  could  not,  by  combining  their  financial 
resources,  hope  to  acquire  control  of  any  large  fraction  of  this  immense  reserve  of  raw 
material. 

"Since  the  supply  of  limestone  and  clay  can  not  be  cornered,  since  no  essential 
parts  of  the  processes  of  manufacture  are  covered  by  exclusive  patents,  and  since 
transportation  companies  will  seek  freight,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  no  cement 
combination  can  succeed  in  permanently  raising  prices  to  unfair  rates.  Ae  already 
stated,  there  is  nothing  in  existence  at  present  even  remotely  approaching  a  cement 
trust.  The  trouble  is  rather  in  the  other  direction.  The  prosperity  of  the  last  few 
years,  with  reports  of  enormous  profits  earned  by  existing  companies,  has  led  to  the 
building  of  many  new  cement  plants.  A  fair  proportion  of  these  are  either  too  small, 
badly  located,  faulty  in  design,  or  badly  managed;  and  with  the  first  general  business 
depression  and  the  commencement  of  falling  prices  such  plants  will  necessarily 
become  a  danger  to  the  entire  industry.  The  condition  at  present  is  therefore  marked 
by  excess  rather  than  lack  of  competition." 

In  other  words,  the  impossibility  of  "trust"  ownership,  due  to  the  immense  amount 
and  wide  distribution  of  the  raw  material  from  which  cement  is  made,  predicted 
by  Mr.  Eckel  in  1907,  has  been  borne  out  by  the  development  of  the  industry  during 
the  last  four  years. 

In  conclusion,  we  respectfully  ask  the  retention  of  the  present  rate  of  duty. 

ADDENDA. 

In  connection  with  the  duty  on  Portland  cement,  your  petitioner  desires  to  call 
your  attention  to  a  small  but  important  branch  of  the  industry,  that  being  the  manu- 
facture of  white  nonstaininc*  Portland  cement. 

Cement  of  tlas  character  has  been  manufactured  in  this  country  for  about  six 
years.  Prior  to  1908  the  production  was  very  small  and  was  confined  to  three  com- 
panies. Two  of  these  companies  have  since  gone  out  of  business,  and  one  has  been 
added,  the  production  of  the  country  at  present  being  by  two  companies  only.  The 
principal  reason  for  the  small  number  of  producing  factories  in  this  country  is  the 
known  high  cost  of  production  and  the  steady  importation  of  cements  of  foreign 


SCHEDULE  B.  455 

PABAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

manufacture  at  prices  which  make  competition  without  profit.     The  production  fig- 
ures prior  to  1908  are  not  available,  but  from  that  date  are  as  follows: 

Barrels. 

1908 60,000 

1909 67,  749 

1910 72, 743 

1911 135,  775 

Figures  for  1912  are  not  available  at  this  time. 

This  product  being  white  in  color  and  nonstaining,  by  which  is  meant  that  when 
used  as  a  mortar  for  setting,  pointing,  and  backing  fine-textured  stones  that  they  are 
relieved  from  the  staining  which  occurs  when  brought  into  contact  with  ordinary 
Portland  cement  of  commerce,  is  growing  in  demand  but  much  more  costly  to  pro- 
duce on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  proper  raw  material  and  the  more  expensive  manu- 
facturing process. 

Ordinary  gray  Portland  cement  is  burned  with  coal,  while  in  the  manufactuie  of 
white  Portland  cement  the  burning  process  must  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  fuel 
oil,  which  is  a  very  substantial  factor  in  the  cost  of  white  Portland  cement.  The 
advance  in  the  price  of  this  commodity  being  33  per  cent  in  1912  over  1911,  and 
contracts  made  for  the  year  1913  are  at  an  advance  of  55  per  cent  over  the  price  at 
which  fuel  oil  was  sold  in  1911. 

Prior  to  the  manufacture  of  white  nonstaining  Portland  cement  in  the  United 
States  the  demand  in  this  country  was  supplied  by  importation  from  foreign  countries 
and  sold  at  a  price  largely  in  excess  of  the  prices  prevailing  to-day.  The  advent  of 
American  white  nonstaining  Portland  cement  has  materially  reduced  the  price  of 
cements  of  this  quality,  at  prices,  however,  which  have  been  established  by  the 
American  manufacturers. 

The  prices  at  which  white  nonstaining  Portland  cements  are  being  sold  by  American 
manufacturers  have  provided  only  a  reasonable  margin  of  profit,  and  the  rapidly 
increasing  cost  of  production,  as  shown  herewith,  will  at  an  early  date  make  the 
manufacture  of  these  grades  of  Portland  cement  unprofitable,  and  we  feel  that  a 
protection  for  the  purpose  of  fostering  a  growing  industry  should  be  accorded  through 
the  medium  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  which  will  be  more  in  proportion  to  the  value  of 
the  commodity  than  exists  at  present. 

We  fear  that  unless  the  protection  is  accorded  American  manufacturers  will  be 
forced  out  of  business  and  that  the  higher  prices  to  American  consumers  in  effect 
prior  to  the  manufacture  of  this  commodity  in  the  United  States  will  be  restored. 

It  is  shown  in  this  brief  that  between  1903  and  1911  the  duty  on  Portland  cement 
has  ranged  from  24.4  per  cent  to  20.3  per  cent. 

The  average  selling  price  of  white  nonstaining  Portland  cement  is  $2.75  per  barrel 
of  400  pounds  at  the  mill,  including  the  value  of  the  package,  the  present  duty  of 
8  cents  per  100  pounds,  or  32  cents  per  barrel,  being  equivalent  to  but  12  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 

Your  petitioner  therefore  respectfully  submits  that  an  increase  in  the  duty  to  25 
per  cent  ad  valorem  on  white  and  nonstaining  Portland  cements,  by  reason  of  the 
facts  and  figures  herewith  submitted,  can  be  consistently  asked  for,  and  it  is  respect- 
fully urged  that  such  be  enacted. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  H    G.  MOULTON,  OF  ROCKLAND,  ME. 

Mr.  MOULTON.  I  represent  the  New  England  Portland  Cement 
Company,  which  owns  a  deposit  of  clay  and  limestone  at  Rockland, 
Me.,  and  hopes  to  develop  in  New  England  a  cement  industry 
where  none  now  exists.  Tnere  is  not  any  cement  plant  nearer  New 
England  than  the  Hudson  River.  The  nearest  plant  is  on  the  Hud- 
son River,  the  Atlas  and  the  plants  of  the  Lehigh  Valley,  and  that 
leaves  all  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  and  that  portion  of  the 
country  is  either  dependent  on  them  or  on  foreign  importations. 
They  are  not  at  present  dependent  upon  foreign  importations  because 
statistics  show  that  the  trade  movement  is  the  other  way  on  cement. 

We  think  there  is  an  opportunity  to  manufacture  about  a  million 
barrels  of  cement  right  in  Aew  England.  Furthermore,  at  Rockland 


456  TABIFP   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

we  would  have  the  only  cement  plant  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  and 
it  would  be  in  a  position  to  ship  by  water  all  the  way  down  the  coast, 
through  the  Panama  Canal,  and  compete  on  the  Pacific  coast  and  in 
South  America. 

We  are  willing  to  meet  any  kind  of  fair  and  square  competition. 
We  expect  to  go  after  the  business,  but  we  will  nave  to  get  lower 
prices  than  prevail  at  present  to  get  the  business,  because  we  will 
have  to  meet  the  established  companies.  We  do  not  think  that  we 
should  in  the  future  have  to  meet  the  dumping  of  surplus  stocks  from 
Germany.  At  the  present  time  conditions  are  very  active  abroad 
and  very  prosperous.  People  are  fully  employed  and  cement  prices 
are  high  and  there  is  a  big  demand,  so  that  we  would  not  meet  com- 
petition there  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  statistics  show  that  we  are  doing  the  dumping 
on  the  other  countries. 

Mr.  MOULTON.  Yes;  because  of  conditions  that  now  exist  and  be- 
cause of  high  prices  abroad.  But,  by  the  way,  we  are  not  dumping; 
we  are  simply  exporting  legitimately  wherever  we  can  export  on  an 
even  freight  rate  basis.  Where  the  freight  rate  was  the  same,  we 
would  probably  export  to  Cuba,  perhaps,  and  to  parts  of  South 
America.  But  suppose  there  should  come  a  depression,  a  sudden 
depression  in  Europe,  on  account  of  war  or  anything  that  might  spring 
up.  Suppose  a  depression  of  that  kind  would  come,  which  would  cur- 
tail by  half  or  by  a  quarter,  the  European  consumption  or  demand. 
Then  Germany  and  Belgium  and  England  could  afford  to  let  go  of  a 
good  deal  of  cement  at  a  very  much  less  price  than  prevails  now. 

Furthermore,  the  freight  rates  from  Europe  to  the  United  States 
are  at  the  highest  level  in  my  knowledge.  You  all  know  of  the  recent 
phenomenal  increase  in  freight  rates,  due  to  the  immense  growth  of 
traffic  and  of  commerce.  What  would  happen  to  this  freight  rate 
should  the  European  depression  spring  up,  or  a  depression  of  com- 
merce ?  It  would  cut  the  freight  rate  down  so  low  that  a  duty  of 
30  cents  a  barrel,  which  is  what  the  present  duty  amounts  to,  would 
just  about  protect  our  manufacturing  cost.  It  seems  to  me  that 
that  argument  alone  justifies  the  maintenance  of  the  duty,  if  the 
New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  has  a  valid  right  to  go  into 
existence. 

In  other  words,  I  think  if  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co. 
has  a  valid  right  to  go  into  existence  in  New  England;  if  it  serves 
the  public  interest  and  it  is  to  the  best  interests  of  this  country  that 
the  company  should  go  in  there,  then  we  are  justified  in  having  just 
such  a  dutv  as  might  prevent  wrongful  and  hurtful  competition  in 
times  of  depression  abroad.  An  investor  coming  in  to  establish  a 
cement  plant  in  a  new  district  can  not  look  to  present  conditions 
alone;  IK;  must  look  ahead  and  see  what  might  happen  tc  his  invest- 
ment a  few  years  hence.  I  think  the  establishment  of  that  cement 
plant  in  New  England  will  be  serving  a  very  laudable  public  aim. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Your  company  is  going  to  be  a  company  that  is 
going  to  fight  what  is  known  as  the  Portland  Cement  Trust? 

Mr.  MOULTOX.  There  is  no  Portland  cement  trust,  as  shown  by 
the  result  of  my  investigations. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  There  has  always  been  considered  one.  If  there  is 
a  trust,  you  people  are  going  to  be  right  in  wnth  them. 


SCHEDULE   B.  457 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Mr.  MOULTON.  If  there  is  any  trust  we  can  fight  them  tooth  and 
toenail.  We  stand  on  our  own  feet  and  go  into  that  district  inde- 
pendently— 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  You  had  better  be  prepared  to  Tight 
those  Portland  cement  fellows  in  the  United  States,  because  they 
are  fighting. 

Mr.  MOULTON.  We  have  considered  that,  and  we  have  every 
opportunity  to  fight  them.  We  have  certain  districts  that  we  can 
legitimately  serve  and  can  be  in  a  position,  as  I  say,  to  fight  any 
competition  that  might  exist  in  the  United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  already  invested  your  money  ? 

Mr.  MOULTON.  To  some  extent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  going  to  say  if  you  had  not  you  could  come 
down  to  Alabama  and  we  would  pretty  nearly  give  you  all  the  cement 
rock  you  want,  and  you  can  be  protected  by  the  freight  rate,  and  be 
where  they  could  not  come  after  you. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  would  suggest  that  you  get  this  foreign  competition 
scare  out  of  your  mind  and  begin  to  fix  your  plans  to  fight  the  fellows 
inside  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  MOULTON.  That  is  what  we  have  been  doing,  and  I  think  it  is 
no  more  than  fair  to  give  us  protection  against  possible  future  dump- 
ing. That  is  all  we  ask.  You  know  an  investor  putting  his  money 
into  a  new  proposition  looks  to  the  future  and  asks  all  sorts  of  ques- 
tions. I  would  not  be  afraid  to  put  my  money  in  and  tackle  them  any- 
where. I  think  we  have  got  the  skill  and  the  courage  and  the  knowl- 
edge of  it,  and  I  am  not  afraid  to  go  up  against  any  foreign  technical 
man  on  such  a  question.  But  when  you  are  asking  an  investor  to 
invest  his  money,  he  looks  ahead  and  asks  as  to  the  future,  as  to 
what  conditions  might  be.  And  I  think  you  ought  to  consider  his 
future  also. 

Mr.  DIXON.  You  want  the  duty  left  just  as  it  is  ? 

Mr.  MOULTON.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  it.  It  is  not  an  exorbitant  duty. 
It  is  only  about  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  looks  very  much  like  Mr.  Hill,  of  Connecticut, 
and  Mr.  Payne,  of  New  York,  have  just  simply  excited  your  fears 
unnecessarily  about  this  tariff  and  the  foreigners. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Moulton,  your  time  is  up. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Is  there  anything  else  you  want  to  present? 

Mr.  MOULTON.  I  was  simply  going  to  state  that  the  putting  of  the 
tariff  duty  down  would  not,  under  present  conditions,  reduce  the 
price  of  cement.  It  might  do  it  in  some  years.  We  think  that  the 
establishment  of  that  plant  there,  on  an  average  over  a  term  of 
years,  would  mean  lower  prices  for  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  with  the 
duty  as  it  is  now,  than  a  reduction  of  the  duty  would  give.  That  is 
my  argument. 

I  thank  you. 

The  witness  filed  the  following  brief  with  the  committee: 

THE    NEW    ENGLAND   PORTLAND   CEMENT   CO.    AND   THE   TARIFF. 

The  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  owns  deposits  of  limestone  and  clay  at 
Rockland,  Knox  County,  Me.,  and  is  developing  these  deposits  with  the  intention 
of  erecting  at  Rocklaud  a  plant  for  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement.  In  the 
beginning  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  hopes  to  supply  cement  to  the 


458  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

New  England  market,  and  ultimately,  to  the  entire  Atlantic  coast  and,  by  way 
of  the  Panama  Canal,  to  the  Pacific  coast  of  the  United  State?,  Mexico,  and  South 
America. 

Located  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  would 
feel  the  full  effect  of  any  European  competition,  present  or  future.  At  the  present 
time  this  competition  would  not  be  severe  for  the  reason  that  the  demand  for  cement, 
and  as  a  result,  its  price,  ia  at  a  very  high  level  in  Germany,  Belgium,  and  England. 
Also,  the  freight  rates  between  European  and  United  States  points  are  at  record 
levels,  due  to  the  recent  boom  in  the  world's  commerce  and  shipping.  The  New 
England  Portland  Cement  Co.,  however,  must  look  to  the  future  as  well  as  to  the 
present  in  considering  the  investment  of  capital  at  Rockland.  Should  there  come  a 
depression  and  period  of  low  prices  in  Germany,  Belgium,  and  England,  European 
manufacturers  of  cement  would  be  very  glad  to  sell  a  part  of  their  product  for  export 
at  no  more  than  the  actual  labor,  material,  and  repair  costs  of  production  and  thus 
keep  intact  their  organizations.  Under  such  conditions  the  mills  of  Germany  and 
Belgium  (in  which  labor  receives  only  half  the  wages  which  the  New  England  Port- 
land Cement  Co.  must  pay)  would  no  doubt  feel  justified  in  selling  their  surplus 
product  at  40  cents  or  even  at  30  cents  per  barrel.  At  the  same  time,  under  the  con- 
ditions which  would  exist  in  the  shipping  trade,  freight  rates  on  Portland  cement 
to  the  United  States  would  decline  from  the  present  figures  of  30  cents  per  barrel  to 
15  cents  or  less  per  barrel,  as  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  ships  going  to  the  United 
States  for  cotton  and  foodstuffs  would  be  very  glad  to  handle  so  bulky  a  product  as 
Portland  cement  on  the  outbound  voyage  at  a  figure  little  above  the  actual  cost  of 
handling  rather  than  go  in  ballast.  The  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  respect- 
fully submits  to  your  honorable  committee  that  under  such  conditions  a  duty  of  30 
cents  per  barrel  (8  cents  per  100  pounds)  would  do  no  more  than  protect  its  actual 
operating  and  depreciation  costs,  allowing  nothing  for  interest  on  the  investment. 

On  page  220  of  the  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Report  of  January  13,  1913,  Vice  Con- 
sul General  Poole,  of  Berlin,  gives  detailed  statistics  of  the  German  cement  industry. 
In  these  it  is  shown  that  during  1911  the  average  yearly  wage  of  cement  workers  in 
Germany  was  $280  per  year  and  that  the  average  value  of  the  cement  produced  was 
85.3  cents  per  barrel.  A  comparison  of  these  figures  with  corresponding  statistics  for 
the  United  States  shows  that  in  1909  the  average  wage  of  cement  workers  in  this  coun- 
try was  $576  (census  data)  and  that  in  1911,  according  to  the  records  of  the  United 
States  Geological  Survey,  the  average  mill  price  of  Portland  cement  was  84.4  cents 
per  barrel.  It  is  plain  from  this  that  the  demand  for  cement  in  Germany  was  so  great 
that  the  operations  of  the  mills  was  very  profitable  and  that  higher  prices  were  obtained 
than  those  prevailing  in  the  United  States  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  labor  costs  are  100 
per  cent  higher  in  the  latter  country.  In  these  figures  is  found  the  explanation  for  the 
large  exports  of  cement  from  the  United  States  and  the  small  imports  into  this  country 
from  abroad .  The  figures  also  show  clearly  that  under  different  conditions  in  Germany 
the  relative  position  of  the  two  countries  in  the  cement  trade  would  undergo  a  decided 
change,  for  the  labor  costs  are  twice  as  great  here. 

The  honorable  chairman  of  your  committee  on  January  10,  1913,  stated  that  your 
committee  has  to  legislate  on  facts  and  conditions  as  they  are  to-day  and  that  the  tariff 
bill  can  not  be  written  for  what  is  going  to  happen.  As  investors  in  the  industry  we 
can  not  nrglect  the  future  probabilities  for  the  reason  that  the  value  of  our  invest- 
ment in  future  years  will  be  determined  by  the  conditions  prevailing  in  those  years. 
But  even  if  consideration  is  given  only  to  present  conditions,  what  is  there  in  them  to 
require  a  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  on  cement?  If  cement  now  sells  in  the  United 
States  at  lower  prices  than  those  quoted  abroad,  and  if  we  are  exporting  to  foreign 
countries  in  the  face  of  German  competition,  then  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  rate  would 
have  no  effect  on  the  present  price  of  cement  in  the  United  States,  nor  would  it  increase 
the  revenue  of  the  Government  through  increasing  imports.  There  is  nothing  in 
present  conditions  to  warrant  a  reduction  of  this  tariff  rate,  either  from  the  standpoint 
of  increasing  competition  or  from  the  standpoint  of  increasing  revenue.  If  the  com- 
mittee, in  considering  this  tariff  schedule,  has  in  mind  the  possibility  of  higher  cement 
prices  here  and  the  introduction  of  a  competitive  tariff  rate,  then  it  must  necessarily 
look  to  the  future,  and  in  that  event  the  future  position  of  the  New  England  Portland 
Cement  Co.  should  also  be  given  due  and  just  consideration.  Present  conditions  make 
any  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  on  Portland  cement  ineffective  and  inconsequential, 
but  the  conditions  which  we  may  expect  in  the  future  do  justify  its  maintenance. 

While  we,  located  on  the  seaboard  and  on  the  firing  line  of  competition,  would  have 
to  bear  the  brunt  of  German  dumping  under  future  probable  conditions  we  would  not 
be  the  only  sufferer.  The  plants  in  Alabama,  which  are  now  able  to  supply  the  cement 
necessary  for  the  great  harbor  improvements  at  Mobile,  Pensacola,  New  Orleans,  and 


SCHEDULE  B.  459 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

other  Gulf  ports  would  be  undersold  in  these  cities  by  the  European  plants,  which  could 
ship  their  cement  as  ballast  in  vessels  returning  for  cargoes  of  cotton.  The  cement 
market  in  gulf  ports  is  now  kept  at  reasonable  levels  by  competition  between  the  Ala- 
bama plants  and  those  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.  Surely  the  citizens  of  Alabama 
would  not  wish  their  plants  to  meet  additional  competition  through  unfair  dumping 
of  European  surplus  stocks  in  periods  of  depression,  nor  do  we  believe  that  the  cement 
users  of  the  North  Atlantic  seaboard  would  prefer  the  opportunity  of  obtaining  foreign 
cement  at  low  figures  in  occasional  years  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  all-American 
enterprise  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

Now,  if  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  is  engaged  in  a  legitimate,  proper 
attempt  to  develop  an  hitherto  latent  resource  of  the  New  England  States  it  has  the 
right  to  ask  at  the  hands  of  your  committee  such  protection  as  will  prevent  undue 
and  unfair  dumping  of  foreign  surplus  stocks  during  periods  of  depression  abroad — pro- 
vided that  the  protection  which  it  asks  will  not  in  the  long  run  place  an  undue  burden 
upon  the  consuming  public.  It  is  our  contention  that  the  cement  users  of  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  will  in  the  long  run  in  the  average  year  receive  their  cement  at  lower  prices 
by  virtue  of  the  existence  of  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  under  the  present 
duty  than  those  that  would  prevail  without  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co. 
and  with  no  duty. 

The  argument  on  which  this  statement  is  based  is,  first,  that  the  New  England  Port- 
land Cement  Co.  by  introducing  additional  competition  in  the  coastwise  cement  trade 
of  the  United  States  will  keep  cement  prices  at  reasonable  levels — at  levels  lower  than 
would  be  made  by  imports  of  foreign  cement  during  periods  of  prosperity  in  Europe. 
It  would  only  be  during  occasional  periods  of  European  depression  that  imports  of 
European  cement  could  lower  appreciably  the  prices  of  cement  on  the  Atlantic  sea- 
board. Therefore,  the  total  gain  to  consumers  in  years  of  European  prosperity  would 
more  than  offset  the  total  loss  to  them  in  years  of  European  depression,  and  the  tariff 
in  this  case  would  actually  result  in  a  saving  to  the  cement  users  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

In  the  second  place,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  present  duty  is  a  very 
reasonable  one,  amounting  as  it  does  to  only  20  per  cent  of  the  average  import  value 
of  Portland  cement  during  the  past  calendar  vear.  It  is  our  understanding  that  this 
is  less  than  half  of  the  average  rate  of  duty  collected  on  imports  during  the  past  year. 
As  to  the  effect  of  a  duty  of  30  cents  per  barrel  on  the  ultimate  consumer,  even  in  a 
year  when  prices  in  some  localities  might  be  reduced  to  the  extent  of  such  a  duty,  it 
may  be  said  that  the  average  cost  of  a  cubic  yard  of  mass  concrete  is  about  $5  and 
that  this  amount  of  concrete  requires  only  one  barrel  of  cement,  on  which  the  tariff 
protection  would  be  30  cents,  or  6  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  the  concrete.  In  reen- 
forced  concrete  buildings,  etc.,  the  cement  used  accounts  for  a  far  smaller  percentage 
of  the  value  of  a  complete  job  than  in  the  case  of  mass  concrete,  and  it  is  doubtful  it 
the  ultimate  effect  of  30  cents  per  barrel  addition  to  or  deduction  from  the  price  of 
cement  would  affect  the  cost  of  constructing  an  office  building  or  manufacturing 
plant  as  much  as  one-half  of  1  per  cent,  an  amount  too  small  to  be  reflected  in  rent. 

We  therefore  maintain  that  we  are  not  asking  to  have  a  burden  put  upon  the  con- 
sumers in  this  country  to  enable  us  to  establish  a  plant  at  Rocklaud,  for  we  believe 
that  the  establishment  of  our  plant  there  will  result  in  a  substantial  gain  to  them.  We 
further  believe  that  in  establishing  at  Rockland  a  plant  manufacturing  1-,000,000 
barrels  of  cement  per  annum,  employing  300  American  workingmen,  consuming 
annually  over  100,000  tons  of  American  coal,  requiring  the  investment  of  $2,000,000 
American  capital,  and  providing  new  tonnage  for  shipment  in  American  coastwise 
vessels,  we  would  be  engaged  in  the  highest  and  most  praiseworthy  type  of  industrial 
development  and  that  our  attempt  to  expand  the  industry  and  commerce  at  New 
England  is  entitled  to  the  very  kindest  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  Government — 
especially  since  the  treatment  that  we  ask  involves  in  no  way  a  special  privilege  or 
over  a  term  of  years  a  taxation  of  the  consumer  for  our  benefit. 

We  feel  that  we  are  especially  entitled  to  consideration  in  this  matter  for  the  reason 
that  we  are  pioneers  in  the  field  of  cement  manufacture  in  the  New  England  States 
and  also  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  and  if  we  are  willing  to  take  the  risk  of  developing 
these  deposits  and  expending  capital  in  their  exploitation  we  feel  that  we  are  entitled 
to  all  the  protection  which  can  be  given  us  without  taxing  others  for  our  benefit. 

There  is  a  further  question  to  be  considered  in  this  connection;  it  is  that  of  dis- 
crimination. In  years  of  depression,  with  surplus  production  and  low  freight  rates, 
the  manufacturers  of  Europe  will  be  able  to  place  cement  at  the  Atlantic  seaboard  at 
prices  30  cents  per  barrel  below  those  which  could  be  made  by  the  American  plants. 
Under  such  conditions  the  Atlantic  seaboard  would  receive  its  cement  at  very  much 
lower  prices  than  those  that  could  prevail  300  miles  back  from  the  coast  line,  for  the 
reason  that  a  haul  of  300  miles  inland  will  cost  on  the  average  more  than  30  cents  per 


460  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PABAGRAFH  86— CEMENT. 

barrel  in  freight  rates  and  therefore  use  up  all  of  the  tariff  protection.  Since  the 
natural  protection  of  freight  rates  makes  prices  independent  of  the  tariff,  excepting 
on  a  very  narrow  belt  along  the  coast  line,  a  reduction  in  price  in  any  year  through 
a  removal  of  duties  would  constitute  an  actual  discrimination  by  the  Government 
against  the  entire  interior  territory  and  in  favor  of  a  very  narrow  strip  along  the  coast. 
The  question  also  arises  as  to  whether  or  not  foreign  competition  is  necessary  to 
prevent  undue  increase  in  cement  prices  as  a  result  of  combination  among  American 

Eroducers.  In  reply,  it  may  be  stated  with  full  confidence  that  there  is  not,  has  not 
een,  and  never  will  be,  a  cement  trust  in  the  United  States;  that  there  has  not  been, 
and  is  not  now,  any  agreement  among  leading  producers  of  cement  looking  to  the 
restriction  of  output,  restriction  of  territory,  or  maintenance  of  the  price  of  Portland 
cement;  the  very  conditions  of  occurrence  of  the  raw  materials  of  Portland  cement 
in  the  United  States  makes  it  impossible  that  a  cement  trust  should  ever  develop. 
In  an  industry  of  this  sort,  control  of  the  output  could  be  obtained  only  through  a 
control  of  the  raw  materials  and  these  occur  so  widely  distributed  over  the  United 
States  that  no  man  or  set  of  men  can  ever  monopolize  them.  The  largest  interest 
now  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  Portland  cement  is  the  Atlas  Cement  Co.,  which 
makes  about  15  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  the  United  States.  The  next 
largest  is  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  which  manufactures  the  so-called 
Universal  Cement  from  blast  furnace  slag  and  limestone  and  accounts  for  10  per  cent 
of  the  entire  production  of  the  country.  The  remaining  75  per  cent  of  the  production 
come  from  widely  scattered,  small,  independent  companies  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States.  The  very  course  of  cement  prices  and  production  in  recent  years  shows  that 
there  has  been  no  combination  in  the  industiy.  If  combination  in  the  industry 
would  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  total  production  of  cement  in  the  United 
States  from  5,800,000  barrels  in  1899  to  78,528,000  barrels  in  1911,  and  at  the  same 
time  decreasing  its  price  from  $1.80  per  barrel  at  the  mill  in  1899  to  84  cents  in  1911, 
it  would  seem  to  be  to  the  interest  of  the  Government  to  foster  combination  of  that 
sort.  Such  is  not  the  result  of  combination,  however;  it  is  the  result  of  free,  inde- 
pendent competition,  such  as  now  exists  and  which  has,  incidentally,  brought  the 
price  of  Portland  Cement  to  a  level  so  low  that  its  manufacture  is  profitable  only  at  a 
few  plants  which  have  such  locations  that  freight  rates  give  protection. 

In  conclusion,  we  respectfully  ask,  that  your  honorable  committee,  when  consider- 
ing the  question  of  tariff  rates  on  Portland  cement,  take  into  consideration  the  aims 
of  the  New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.,  and  look  to  the  future  rather  than  to  the 
present  in  considering  the  possible  effect  of  foreign  competition,  remembering  always 
that  we  ask  for  protection  not  on  a  basis  of  what  now  exists  but  on  a  basis  of  what  may 
exist  under  certain  probable  conditions  in  Europe;  and  if  you  agree  with  us  that  the 
New  England  Portland  Cement  Co.  in  this  attempt  to  develop  a  latent  but  hitherto 
unexploited  resource  of  the  New  England  States,  is  doing  a  proper  and  valuable 
service  to  the  New  England  States  and  to  this  country  as  a  whole,  we  respectfully 
ask  that  you  retain  the  present  reasonable  rate  of  duty  of  8  cents  per  100  pounds  on 
Portland  cement. 

IMPORTS  INTO  CANAL  ZONE. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  COMMERCE  AND  LABOR, 
BUREAU  OF  FOREIGN  AND  DOMESTIC  COMMERCE, 

Washington,  January  25,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  telephone  inquiry  to-day  I  beg  to  inform  you  that 
imports  into  the  Canal  Zone  are  subject  to  the  customs  treatment  prescribed  by  the 
laws  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  no  distinction  whatever  is  made  between  imports 
from  the  United  States  and  those  of  other  countries.  All  articles  imported  by  the 
Isthmian  Canal  Commission  or  by  the  Panama  Railroad  are  admitted  free  of  duty 
independent  of  their  country  of  origin. 

In  tliis  connection  your  attention  is  invited  to  an  article  on  the  tariff  system  of 
Panama  herewith  inclosed  (from  Foreign  Tariff  X^tes,  No.  7,  pp.  195-200). 
Very  truly,  youra, 

A.  H.  BALDWIN,  Chief  of  Bureau. 


SCHEDULE   B.  461 

PABAORAPH  86— CEMENT. 

MAJ.  F.  C.  BOGGS  TKANSMITS  DATA  ON  CEMENT  FURNISHED 
ISTHMIAN  CANAL  COMMISSION. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  The  question  was  raised  yesterday  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  bids  made  by  foreign  manufacturers  of  cement  were  lower 
than  bids  made  by  domestic  manufacturers  of  cement  for  the  work 
on  the  Panama  Canal.  I  have  addressed  some  inquiries  to  the 
Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  and  I  have  an  answer  to-day,  which 
was  that  14  bids  were  submitted  by  foreign  manufacturers  or  cement, 
and  every  one  of  them  without  exception  was  higher  than  the  bids 
submitted  by  the  Atlas  Cement  Co.,  to  whom  the  contract  for  4,500,000 
barrels  was  awarded.  The  foreign  bids  ranged  from  $1.25  up  to  $2.10, 
and  the  contract  was  awarded  to  the  Atlas  Cement  Co.  for  $1.19,  and 
the  letter  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission  to  me  contains  this 
statement:  "The  bids  for  foreign  cement  were  all  higher  than  the  bid 
of  the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co." 

I  ask  permission  to  insert  this  letter  into  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  stenographer  will  insert  the  letter  in  the 
record. 

ISTHMIAN  CANAL  COMMISSION, 

PURCHASING  DEPARTMENT, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  January  10,  1913. 
Hon.  HENRY  T.  RAINEY, 

House  of  Representatives,  United  States,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  Referring  to  your  letter  of  January  9,  1913,  asking  certain  questions  relative 
to  cement  contracts  for  the  Panama  Canal,  I  would  advise  as  follows: 

It  is  understood  that  your  request  concerns  the  large  contracts  for  furnishing  cement 
for  the  locks  on  the  canal  and  for  other  purposes,  it  being  noted  that  very  little  cement 
is  used  in  the  Gatum  Dam  or  other  dams  on  the  canal.  It  is  also  noted  that  the  infor- 
mation given  below  does  not  include  a  few  small  orders  for  cement  which  were  placed 
before  the  request  for  the  large  amount  required.  In  connection  with  the  larger  con- 
tracts, which  include  practically  95  per  cent  of  all  the  cement  used,  it  is  noted  that 
two  requests  for  bids  have  been  issued: 

1.  Under  Isthmian  Canal  Commission  Circular  420,  which  was  opened  June  1,  1908, 
and  under  which  contract  was  awarded  for  4,500,000  barrels  of  cement,  with  authority 
for  the  commission,  at  its  option,  to  increase  or  decrease  this  amount  by  15  per  cent. 
The  cement  called  for  was  to  be  delivered  over  a  period  of  approximately  three  years. 

2.  Circular  721,  which  was  opened  on  September  3,  1912,  called  for  1,000,000  bar- 
rels of  cement  and  was  issued  on  account  of  the  need  for  cement  in  addition  to  the 
material  called  for  under  Circular  420. 

The  information  you  ask  in  your  letter  will  be  given  below  and  will  be  indicated 
for  each  circular  separately. 

INFORMATION    UNDER  CIRCULAR  420. 

Who  let  the  contract? 

All  bids  were  forwarded  to  the  authorities  on  the  Isthmus,  where  they  were  can- 
vassed and  contract  was  awarded  in  accordance  with  instructions  from  the  chairman 
and  chief  engineer,  Col.  Goethals,  in  his  letter  of  August  14,  1908. 

How  much  were  they  to  furnish  and  what  was  the  price? 

The  contract  was  awarded  to  the  Altas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  of  Northampton, 
Pa.,  for  the  total  amount  called  for  under  the  circular,  viz,  4,500,000  barrels,  there 
being  two  alternative  prices  covered  in  the  contract. 

(1)  For  material  delivered  in  wooden  barrels,  $1.19. 

(2)  For  material  delivered  in  double  sacks,  which,  at  the  rate  of  four  sackfuls  of 
cement  to  the  barrel,  was  contracted  for  at  $1.60.     The  contract  provided,  however,  for 
a  rebate  of  8J  cents  for  each  of  the  eight  sacks  returned  which  made  the  net  price  of 
the  cement  $0.92. 

Where  do  the  contractors  deliver  the  cement  under  the  contract? 
Within  reach  of  ship's  tackle,  Jersey  City  or  Hoboken. 


462  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  86— CEMENT. 

Were  there  any  bids  from  foreign  contractors? 

Yes. 

What  were  the  bids? 

Foreign  bids  were  received  as  indicated  in  the  table  attached  hereto. 

If  the  contract  had  been  awarded  to  foreign  factorieSj  would  the  foreign  manufac- 
turers have  been  compelled  to  pay  any  duty  to  the  United  States  Government?  In 
other  words,  was  the  tariff  a  factor  at  all  in  the  bidding  between  American  and  foreign 
firms  for  cement? 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  bids  for  foreign  cement  were  all  higher  than  the  bid  of  the 
Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.  However,  if  there  had  been  any  lower  bids,  the  question 
of  duty  would  have  been  considered  on  the  following  account: 

"Joint  resolution  providing  for  the  purchase  of  material  and  equipment  for  use  in 
the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  was  passed  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  approved  on  June  25,  1906,  as  follows: 

"Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  purchases  of  material  and  equipment  for  use  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  restricted  to  articles  of  domestic  production 
and  manufacture,  from  the  lowest  responsible  bidder,  unless  the  President  shall,  in 
any  case,  deem  the  bids  or  tenders  therefor  to  be  extortionate  or  unreasonable." 

In  order  to  permit  a  decision  as  to  what  was  meant  by  extortionate  or  unreasonable 
prices,  inquiry  was  made  of  the  President  by  the  chairman  of  the  commission  under 
date  of  September  20, 1906,  and  the  chairman  of  the  commission  was  advised  as  follows: 

' '  Your  letter  of  the  17th  instant  has  been  received,  and  in  reply  the  President  directs 
me  to  say  that  he  approves  your  recommendations  as  to  making  awards  where  bids 
submitted  on  material  of  foreign  production  are  lower  than  on  material  of  domestic 
production  or  manufacture,  after  adding  to  the  bids  received  on  foreign  materials  such 
duty  as  would  have  to  be  paid  on  same  if  brought  into  the  United  States;  and  where 
bids  on  material  manufactured  in  the  United  States  are  the  lowest,  although  some  or 
all  of  the  raw  material  used  in  manufacturing  them  may  have  been  of  foreign  origin." 

In  accordance  with  this  instruction  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  have  added  to 
the  foreign  bid  the  duty  per  barrel  on  cement  which  was  in  existence  at  that  time  for 
cement  brought  into  the  United  States.  The  resulting  figure  would  then  have  been 
compared  with  the  domestic  bid.  As  indicated  above,  however,  all  foreign  bids  were 
higher  than  the  domestic  bid,  and  therefore  the  duty  did  not  enter  as  a  factor  in  the 
award. 

If  the  contract  had  been  awarded  to  foreign  factories  where  would  they  have  been 
expected  to  deliver  the  cement. 

The  circular  asked  for  alternative  propositions  permitting  delivery  at  seaports  in 
various  countries  or  at  Colon.  The  table  attached  indicates  that  most  bidders  sub- 
mitted bids  on  material  delivered  at  Colon. 

Why  was  the  contract  awarded  to  the  American  bidders? 

Because  they  were  the  low  bidders  on  a  well-known  Portland  cement  which  was  per- 
fectly satisfactory  to  the  authorities  on  the  Isthmus,  and  whose  bid  was  strictly  in 
accordance  with  our  specifications. 

INFORMATION    UNDER   CIRCULAR   721. 

The  details  of  the  awarding  under  Circular  721  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the  memoran- 
dum addressed  to  the  Acting  Secretary  of  War  under  date  of  September  12,  1912,  copy 
attached  hereto.  The  recommendation  contained  in  this  memorandum  was  approved 
by  the  Acting  Secretary  of  War  and  the  contract  has  been  let  accordingly. 

No  bids  were  received  from  foreign  bidders  under  this  circular,  although  requests  to 
bid  were  sent  out  as  usual.  If  there  had  been  any  foreign  bids  under  this  circular  the 
same  rule  relative  to  duty  would  have  applied. 

Trusting  that  the  above  gives  you  the  information  that  you  desire,  I  am, 
Very  respectfully, 

F.  C.  BOGGS, 
Major,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 

General  Purchasing  Officer. 

SEPTEMBER  12,  1912. 

Memorandum  for  the-  Acting  Secretary  of  War: 

Our  contract  with  the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  Washington,  Order  15517,  calls 
for  4.500,000  barrels  of  cement,  with  authoritv  to  increase  or  decrease  this  amount  by 
15  per  cent.  When  this  contract  was  originally  let,  it  was  anticipated  that  the  varia- 
tion allowed  would  cover  all  the  cement  needed  in  the  construction  of  the  canal. 


SCHEDULE   B.  463 

PARAGRAPH  8C— CEMENT. 

However,  due  to  change  of  plans  and  new  work,  it  has  been  found  that  additional 
cement  will  be  needed  and  Isthmian  Canal  Commission  Circular  721  was  accordingly 
issued,  asking  for  bids  on  an  additional  million  barrels.  Under  this  circular  only  two 
bids  were  received,  as  follows: 

Alpha  and  Lehigh  Portland  Cement  Cos.,  combined;  barrels  $1.51;  bags,  $1.91, 
with  rebate  of  10  cente  per  bag,  making  the  net  price  in  bags  $1.11,  delivered  Jersey 
City. 

Santa  Cruz  Portland  Cement  Co.,  no  bid  in  barrels;  in  bags  $1.97,  with  rebate  of  19 
cente  per  bag,  making  the  net  price  $1.17  delivered  San  Francisco. 

The  specifications  under  Circular  721  referred  to  are  practically  the  same  as  under 
the  contract  with  the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.  and  in  fact  the  Atlas  Co.  are  supply- 
ing materials  in  addition  to  their  contract  which  would  practically  make  the  carrying 
out  of  their  work  agree  with  the  requirements  of  Circular  721. 

The  bids  on  this  cement  were  opened  on  September  4.  Previous  to  the  opening,  a 
letter  was  submitted  by  the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  dated  August  31,  in  which 
they  state  that  subject  to  our  acceptance  before  September  20,  they  would  extend 
the  contract  to  cover  all  the  additional  quantity  of  cement  required  to  complete  the 
work  on  the  Canal  Zone  under  the  terms  of  the  contract  now  in  force.  They  also  stated 
personally  that  they  did  not  intend  to  submit  a  bid  under  the  new  circular. 

Under  the  contract  with  the  Atlas  Co.  we  were  purchasing  cement  delivered  at 
Jersey  City  at  $1.19  in  barrels  and  $1.60  in  bags,  with  a  rebate  of  8$  cents  per  bag, 
making  the  net  price  of  cement  in  bags  92  cents.  Comparing  the  low  bid  received 
under  the  present  circular  with  the  price  now  in  force  under  the  contract  with  the 
Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  it  is  noted  that  there  would  be  a  saving  per  barrel  of  cement 
delivered  in  wood  of  32  cents,  or  assuming  that  all  bags  were  returned,  a  saving  per 
barrel  when  delivered  in  bags  of  19  cents.  In  other  words,  if  the  bid  in  bags  were 
accepted,  the  total  price  under  the  low  bid  on  the  circular  for  1,000,000  barrels 
would  be  $1,110,000,  whereas  the  total  cost  under  the  present  contract  with  the  Atlas 
Portland  Cement  Co.  would  be  $920,000,  or  a  saving  of  $190,000. 

Under  date  of  September  5,  I  cabled  to  the  Isthmus  the  results  of  the  opening  of  the 
Circular,  as  indicated  above,  and  also  advised  that  I  had  in  hand  the  proposition  from 
the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  as  indicated  above.  In  reply  to  this  cable  I  received 
cablegram  dated  September  9  as  follows: 

"  Circular  721,  referring  to  your  cable  of  the  5th  instant,  reject  all  bids  and  provide  for 
continuing  contract  with  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.  to  furnish  cement  to  complete 
all  work  in  connection  with  the  canal." 

On  receipt  of  this  cable,  I  replied  as  follows: 

"  Circular  721,  referring  to  your  cable  of  the  9th  instant,  directing  continuation  con- 
tract Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.,  presume  matter  should  be  referred  to  Secretary  for 
final  authority.  Advise." 

And  am  now  in  receipt  of  the  following  cablegram: 

"Referring  to  your  cable  of  the  10th  instant,  Circular  721.  Get  Secretary's  ap- 
proval, if  it  is  necessary." 

After  consulting  with  the  assistant  examiner  of  accounts  in  this  office,  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  your  approval  is  necessary  for  the  above  transaction.  In  addition  to  the 
above  and  for  your  information,  I  would  invite  attention  to  the  following  telegram 
received  from  the  Hon.  Julius  Kahn,  Member  of  Congress. 

"  I  understand  eastern  bidders  on  cement  for  canal  only  6  cents  per  barrel  lower 
than  Pacific  coast  bidders.  As  large  quantity  of  the  cement  is  to  be  used  on  Pacific 
coast  side  I  strongly  urge  that  Pacific  coast  cement  producers  be  given  a  fair  propor- 
tion of  the  contract.  This  will  avoid  cost  to  railroad  company  for  transportation  of 
cement  across  the  Isthmus  and  will  also  give  encouragement  to  development  of  the 
cement  industry  on  the  Pacific  coast.  Kindly  advise  me  of  your  action." 

In  reply  to  this  telegram  Mr.  Kahn  was  advised  that  all  bids  had  been  referred  to 
the  Isthmus.  Mr.  Kahn  apparently  cabled  Col.  Goethals  in  the  same  tenor,  as  under 
date  of  September  7  we  received  the  following  cable  from  Col.  Goethals,  which  was 
immediately  wired  to  Mr.  Kahn: 

"Wire  Julius  Kahn,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  referring  to  his  cable  of  the  7th  instant, 
Pacific  coast  highest  bidders  cement,  and  award  can  not  be  made  to  them." 

I  am  to-day  in  receipt  of  the  following  additional  telegram  from  Mr.  Kahn: 

"Your  telegram  10th  regarding  cement  received.  Cement  manufacturers  here  are 
working  earnestly  to  develop  industry.  The  Government  ought  to  help  them,  for 
occasion  will  arise  when  Government  will  need  plant  output.  Awarding  a  portion 
of  the  cement  requirements  to  Pacific  coast  bidders  will  encourage  them  and  will  be 
no  additional  expense  on  cement  used  on  Pacific  side  of  Isthmus.  Can  a  portion  of 
this  be  awarded  to  Pacific  coast  bidders?  " 


464 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


P  ABA  GRAPH  87— LUCE. 

To  which  no  reply  has  as  yet  been  made.  If  approved,  the  following  will  he  sent 
him: 

"Commission  has,  with  approval  Secretary  of  War,  rejected  all  bids  under  Circular 
721  and  accepted  offer  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.  continue  old  contract,  $1.60  barrel, 
rebate  8£  cents  per  bag.  This  offer  filed  before  opening  bids,  Circular  721." 

In  view  of  all  the  above  I  would  therefore  request  your  approval  of  the  recommenda- 
tion from  Col.  Goethals  to  cancel  all  the  bids  under  Circular  721  and  continue  with 
the  Atlas  Portland  Cement  Co.  at  the  figures  in  their  old  contract,  with  the  result  in 
saving  to  the  Government  of  approximately  20  per  cent. 


Approved  as  above: 


Major,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army 

General  Purchasing  Officer. 


Acting  Secretary  of  War. 


Name. 

Number 
barrels 
quoted  on. 

Place 
delivery. 

Con- 
tainer 
(bags  or 
barrels). 

Rebate 
on  ship- 
ment. 

Net  price  at  point 
of  delivery,  per 
barrel. 

In  bags. 

In  barrels 

Breitenburger    Portland    Cement 
Fabrik,  Hamburg,  Germany. 
East  Asiatic  Co.,  Copenhagen,  Den- 
mark. 
Martin     Earle     (Ltd.),      London, 
England. 
J.  Menrin,  Andernach,  Germany... 
Rheinisch  -  Westfalisches    Cement 
Svndikat,  Bremen,  Germany. 
Suddeutsches      Cement      Export 
Kontor,  Mannheim,  Germany. 

Do. 

150,000 
500,000 
1,000,000 

1,500,000 
1,000,000 

100,000 

100,000 
216,000 

4,500,000 

4,500,000 
900,  000 

gtin.ono 
4,  500,  000 

(') 

Colon  
...do  

Barrels.  . 

$1.82 
1.70 
1.60 

...do  

...do  

...do  

...do... 
.  .do  

Bags.... 
Barrels.  . 

$0.40 

$1.56 

2.00 
1.15 

1.70 
2.08 

1.55 

2.10 
1.76} 

Antwerp 
or   Rot- 
terdam. 
Colon  

...do  

...do..  . 

Sussex  Portland  Cement  Co.  (Ltd.), 
England. 
Weydert  &  Saur,  Strassburg,  Ger- 
many. 
Do 

.  .do  

.do     .. 

New  York 
Colon  

.do.  .. 

.  .do.  .  . 

The  \\ouldham  Cement  Co.  (Ltd.), 
England. 
The  Wouldham  Cement  Co.  (Ltd.). 
"  Bouwmaterialen  "—  Voorheen  M. 
Luiiten. 
Portland  Cement  Works,  Antwerp. 

...do  

...do  

...do  
Amsterdam 

Antwerp 

Bags  — 
Barrels 

.16 

I.  SOJ 

1.3O 
1.25 

.do  

1  Uncertain. 

PARAGRAPH  87. 

Lime,  five  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds,  including  weight  of  barrel  or 
package. 
See  also  argument  of  American  Portland  cement  manufacturers,  page  449. 

LIME. 


STATEMENT  OF  HERMAN  W.  HUKE,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 
ROCKLAND  &  ROCKPORT  LIME  CO.,  OF  MAINE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  I  hike  what  paragraph  do  you  desire  to  speak 
to? 

Mr.  IlrKE.  Paragraph  87,  Schedule  B.  My  name  is  Herman  W. 
ITuke:  address,  Torrington,  Conn. 

Mi*.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  am  here  represent- 
ing the  Rockland  &  Rockport  Lime  Co.,  of  Rockland,  Knox  County, 
Me.,  to  submit  the  following  memoranda  of  facts  relating  to  its  busi- 


SCHEDULE   B.  465 

PARAGRAPH  87— LIME. 

ness  and  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  its  product,  and  I  do  this  in 
respectful  but  earnest  protest  against  the  removal  of  the  present  duty 
of  5  cents  per  hundred  pounds  of  lime. 

This  corporation  has  an  investment  of  $3,700,000,  representing  an 
honest  acquisition  of  property  without  bonus  or  watered  stock. 

It  does  not  own  or  operate  all  the  limekilns  and  limerock  quarries 
in  Knox  County,  but  it  does  own  and  operate  a  large  number  of  them, 
and  consequently  manufactures  and  sells  a  very  considerable  propor- 
tion of  all  the  lime  produced  in  that  section  of  Maine.  Its  average 
annual  output,  based  upon  the  standard  unit  of  200  pounds  of  lime 
to  the  barrel,  is  1,500,000  barrels,  and  its  capacity,  if  market  could  be 
found,  is  easily  2,500,000  barrels  per  annum. 

Its  product  is  used  almost  entirely  for  building  purposes,  and  its 
market  is  confined  practically  to  the  New  England  States  and  the 
city  of  New  York. 

The  cost  of  labor  is  the  principal  single  factor  in  the  cost  of  a  barrel 
of  lime.  This  labor  cost  to  the  Rockland  &  Rockport  Lime  Co.,  up 
to  the  tune  of  shipment,  is  37£  cents  on  every  dollar  expended,  and 
by  the  operation  of  this  corporation  there  is  distributed  to  the  wage 
earners  in  a  community  of  about  12,000  people  a  sum  amounting 
annually  to  $325,000. 

Limerock  is  abundant  in  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  and  the 
markets  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  of  Maine  are  now  being 
supplied  with  lime  from  that  source.  This  provincial  lime  is  manu- 
factured either  on  or  in  close  proximity  to  the  seaboard,  and  a  removal 
of  the  existing  duty,  coupled  with  the  lower  wage  prevailing  there 
and  more  favorable  water  freights,  would  enable  that  lime  to  secure 
the  New  York  and  New  England  markets  now  supplied  with  lime 
from  Maine  and  other  American  States. 

The  lime  business  generally  in  the  East  has  been  far  from  profitable 
in  recent  years,  and  this  corporation,  organized  originally  in  1900, 
has  earned  and  paid  no  dividends  on  its  stock  since  1901,  and  was 
forced  to  reorganize  in  1911  on  a  basis  by  which  the  shareholders 
were  assessed  for  $300,000. 

During  a  period  of  eight  years,  including  the  year  1912,  the  aver- 
age annual  net  profit  has  been  less  than  4  cents  per  barrel. 

The  shareholders  feel  that  the  removal  of  the  duty  of  5  cents  per 
hundred  pouncls  of  lime,  or  a  little  more  than  10  cents  per  barrel — • 
in  itself  a  sum  in  excess  of  any  profit  yet  shown — will  impose  a  burden 
that  is  bound  to  make  failure  inevitable  and  that  will  ruin  the  industry 
without  good  cause  or  reason. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all. 

The  witness  presented  the  following  brief: 

THE  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  SIXTY-SECOND  CONGRESS, 

Washington,  D.  C.: 

The  Rockland  &  Rockport  Lime  Co.,  of  Rockland,  Knox  County,  Me.,  submits  the 
following  memoranda  of  facts  relating  to  its  business  and  to  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  its  product,  and  does  this  in  respectful  but  earnest  protest  against  the  removal  of 
the  present  duty  of  5  cents  per  100  pounds  of  lime: 

Capital  invested. — This  corporation  has  an  investment  of  $3,700,000,  representing  an 
honest  acquisition  of  property  without  bonus  or  watered  stock. 

Extent  of  operations. — It  does  not  own  or  operate  all  the  limekilns  and  limerock 
quarries  in  Knox  County,  but  it  does  own  and  operate  a  large  number  of  them,  and 

78959°— VOL  1—13 30 


466  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  87— LIME. 

consequently  manufactures  and  sells  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  all  the  lime 
produced  in  that  section  of  Maine.  Its  average  annual  output,  based  upon  the 
standard  unit  of  200  pounds  of  lime  to  the  barrel,  is  1,500,000  barrels,  and  its  capacity, 
if  market  could  be  found,  is  easily  2;500,000  barrels  per  annum. 

Products  and  markets. — Its  product  is  used  almost  entirely  for  building  purposes,  and 
its  market  is  confined  practically  to  the  New  England  States  and  the  city  of  New 
York. 

Labor. — The  cost  of  labor  is  the  principal  single  factor  in  the  cost  of  a  barrel  of  lime. 
This  labor  cost  to  the  Rockland  &  Rockport  Lime  Co.,  up  to  the  time  of  shipment,  is 
37$  cents  on  every  dollar  expended,  and  by  the  operation  of  this  corporation  there  ia 
distributed  to  the  wage  earners  in  a  community  of  about  12,000  people  a  sum  amounting 
to  annually  $325,000. 

Conditions  in  New  Brunswick. — Limerock  is  abundant  in  the  Province  of  New 
Brunswick  and  the  markets  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  of  Maine  are  now  being 
supplied  with  lime  from  that  source.  This  provincial  lime  is  manufactured  either 
on  or  in  close  proximity  to  the  seaboard,  and  a  removal  of  the  existing  duty,  coupled 
with  the  lower  wage  prevailing  there  and  more  favorable  water  freights,  would  enable 
that  lime  to  secure  the  New  York  and  New  England  markets  now  supplied  with  lime 
from  Maine  and  other  American  States. 

Conditions  in  New  England. — The  lime  business  generally  in  the  East  has  been  far 
from  profitable  in  recent  years,  and  this  corporation,  organized  originally  in  1900, 
has  earned  and  paid  no  dividends  on  its  stock  since  1901,  and  was  forced  to  reorgan- 
ize in  1911  on  a  basis  by  which  the  shareholders  were  assessed  for  $300,000. 

During  a  period  of  eight  years,  including  the  year  1912,  the  average  annual  net 
profit  has  been  less  than  4  cents  per  barrel. 

Conclusion.— The  shareholders  feel  that  the  removal  of  the  duty  of  5  cents  per 
100  pounds  of  lime,  or  a  little  more  than  10  cents  per  barrel — in  itself  a  sum  in  excess 
of  any  profit  yet  shown — will  impose  a  burden  that  is  bound  to  make  failure  inevita- 
ble and  that  will  ruin  the  industry  without  good  cause  or  reason. 

ROCKLAND  &  ROCKPORT  LIME  Co., 
By  H.  A.  BUFFUM,  Assistant  Treasurer. 

ROCKLAND,  ME.,  January  6,  1913. 


A  SUPPLEMENTARY  BRIEF  CONCERNING  LJME.  FILED  BY  THE  ROCKLAND  &  ROCK- 
PORT  LIME  Co.,  OF  ROCKLAND,  ME.,  FEBRUARY,  1913. 

First.  The  American  tariff  on  lime  is  5  cents  per  100  pounds,  including  weight  of 
barrel  or  package.  (See  par.  87,  tariff  act  of  1909.) 

Second.  The  Canadian  tariff  on  lime  is  12$  cents  per  100  pounds,  including  weight 
of  barrel,  bag,  or  cask.  (See  Canadian  customs  tariff  1907,  item  290.) 

Third.  The  American  tariff  is  not  prohibitive.     Example: 

(A)  Bangor,  Me.,  is  55  miles  from  Rockland,  Me.,  the  center  of  the  lime-manufac- 
turing industry  of  the  North  Atlantic  States. 

(B)  Bangor,  Me.,  is  205  miles  from  St.  John,  New  Brunswick,  the  center  of  the 
lime-manufacturing  industry  on  the  Canadian  coast. 

(C)  Freight  by  rail  from  St.  John  to  Bangor,  205  milee,  per  barrel,  20  cents;  duty 
(including  weight  of  barrel),  per  barrel,  11  cents;  total  freight  and  duty,  St.  John  to 
Bangor,  31  cents. 

(D)  Freight  by  water,  Rockland  to  Bangor,  60  miles,  per  barrel  (no  duty),  6  cents; 
differential  in  favor  of  Rockland,  per  barrel,  25  cente. 

(E)  Notwithstanding  this  differential,  St.  John  is  an  active  competitor  for  and 
does  business  in  Bangor.  Houlton.  and  other  parts  of  Maine.     In  the  Bangor  district 
over  800,000  pounds  (4.000  barrels)  were  imported  last  year,  besides  the  importations 
in  other  ports  of  entry  in  Aroostook  County,  viz,  Fort  Fan-field,  Caribou,  and  Vance- 
boro.     In  addition  to  the  imports  in  the  Bangor  and  other  districts  in  northern  Maine, 
there  were  also  imported  last  year  through  the  Portland  customs  district  over  8,000,000 
pounds  MO, 000  barrels). 

Fourth.  The  high  rate  of  the  Canadian  tariff  absolutely  prevents  the  American  lime 
manufacturers  getting  trade  in  the  maritime  Provinces,  and  gives  the  St.  John  manu- 
facturers a  monopoly  of  the  trade. 

Fifth.  With  any  change  in  duty  (American  tariff  is  now  60  per  cent  lower  than  the 
Canadian  tariff,  being  5  cents  American  as  against  12|  cents  Canadian  per  100  pounds), 


SCHEDULE    B.  467 

PARAGRAPH  88    -GYPSUM. 

the  Canadian  lime  manufacturers  will  extend  their  trade  zone  and  gain  absolute  con- 
trol of  the  Atlantic-coast  trade,  as  well  aa  of  the  trade  of  the  States  bordering  on  the 
Canadian  line,  and  also  of  some  of  the  Middle  States  a  long  distance  therefrom. 

Sixth.  The  Canadian  lime  manufacturers  in  the  maritime  Provinces,  being  in  a  for- 
eign country,  have  a  serious  advantage  over  their  American  competitors  in  the  matter 
of  freight  by  water.  They  can  ship  their  product  in  foreign  bottoms  to  all  the  principal 
consuming  points  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  whereas  the  American  manufacturers  must 
use  (and  rightly  so)  American  bottoms  for  this  coastwise  trade. 

Seventh.  In  view  of  the  facts  herein  stated,  your  petitioner,  the  Rockland  &  Rock- 
port  Lime  Co.,  of  Rockland,  Me.,  a  lime-manufacturing  company  organized  in  1901 
with  $3,700,000  paid  in,  reorganized  in  1911  and  $300,000  more  cash  paid  in,  upon 
which  no  dividend  has  been  paid  since  1901  except  one  of  3$  per  cent  on  $587,000  of 
preferred  stock,  a  company  giving  employment  to  over  500  people,  having  a  pay  roll 
in  excess  of  $350,000  per  year,  distributed  among  a  community  of  12,000  people, 
earnestly  protest  against  the  lowering  of  the  present  duty,  for  if  it  is  lowered  it  will 
without  doubt  cause  our  company  to  suspend  business,  thus  entailing  a  complete  loss 
not  only  to  our  stockholders,  but  also  to  uie  local  community,  by  throwing  out  of  work 
a  large  number  of  loyal  workmen  who  are  dependent  upon  us  for  livelihood  for  them- 
selves and  their  families. 

Ninth.  We  conclude  with  the  following: 

(A)  No  single  individual  company  or  group  of  companies  control  the  American 
lime  trade.     Lime  is  manufactured  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States.     The  sharpest 
competition  exists  in  this  commodity,  so  much  so  that  lime  is  now  sold  and  has  been 
sold  for  a  number  of  years  at  prices  too  low  to  allow  a  fair  margin  for  profit,  and  there 
have  been  large  losses  to  persons  and  companies  engaged  in  this  line  of  business. 

(B)  The  Canadian  tariff,  12$  cents  for  100  pounds,  is  protective,  and,  so  far  as  the 
American  Atlantic  coast  lime  manufacturers  are  concerned,  it  is  an  absolutely  pro- 
hibitive tariff. 

(C)  The  American  duty  of  5  cents  per  100  pounds  (only  40  per  cent  of  the  Canadian 
'duty)  is  not  prohibitive.     It  is  a  tariff  for  revenue  only. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

ROCKLAND  &  ROCKPORT  LIME  Co., 
By  HENRY  S.  LYONS. 
PARAGRAPH  88. 

Plaster  rock  or  gypsnm,  crude,  thirty  cents  per  ton;  if  ground  or  calcined, 
one  dollar  and  seventy-five  cents  per  ton;  pearl  hardening  for  paper  makers', 
use,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  Keene's  cement,  or  other  cement  of  which 
gypsum  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  if  valued  at  ten  dollars  per 
ton  or  less,  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  ton;  if  valued  above  ten  dollars 
and  not  above  fifteen  dollars  per  ton,  five  dollars  per  ton ;  if  valued  above  fifteen 
dollars  and  not  above  thirty  dollars  per  ton,  ten  dollars  per  ton;  if  valued 
above  thirty  dollars  per  ton,  fourteen  dollars  per  ton. 
For  sulphate  of  lime,  see  F.  A.  Reichard,  page  309. 

GYPSUM. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  FRANK  A.  WILDER,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
SOUTHERN  GYPSUM  CO.,  NORTH  HOLSTON,  VA. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wilder,  what  paragraph  do  you  wish  to 
refer  to  ? 

Mr.  WILDER.  Paragraph  88,  section  A,  in  connection  with  the  duty 
on  crude  gypsum,  of  30  cents  per  ton. 

I  wish  to  speak  briefly  ana  merely  to  correct  certain  erroneous 
impressions  that  may  have  been  made  by  the  first  speaker  before  this 
committee  yesterday  morning.  This  speaker  said,  if  I  understood 
him  correctly,  that  importations  of  crude  gypsum  were  decreasing; 
that  the  imported  gypsum  was  used  for  purposes  quite  different  from 


468  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  88— GYPSTJH. 

those  to  which  domestic  gypsum  is  applied;  and  that  imported  gyp- 
sum does  not  come  in  competition  with  the  domestic  gypsum;  and 
on  these  grounds  he  asks  a  reduction  of  tariff  on  crude  gypsum  from 
30  to  20  cents,  the  duty  before  the  act  of  1909  having  been  50  cents. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  figures  given  me  yesterday  by  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics  show  that  the  importations  of  crude  gypsum  are  steadily 
increasing.  Standing  at  about  190,000  tons  in  1901,  they  arose  to 
288,781  in  1909,  340,359  in  1910,  342,517  in  1911,  426,500  in  1912. 

A  reduction  of  the  duty  of  10  cents  a  ton  might  increase  imports 
100,000  tons  and  reduce  domestic  production  by  the  same  amount, 
but  if  this  should  be  done  it  would  be  at  the  expense  of  the  revenue 
derived  from  gypsum  importations  and  to  the  injury  of  certain  of 
the  younger  gypsum  companies,  which  felt  very  severely  the  20-cent 
cut  in  the  duty  on  crude  gypsum  in  1909. 

Practically  all  of  the  imported  gypsum  is  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  wall  plaster  of  just  the  same  nature  that  the  mills  using  domestic 
gypsum  make.  The  imported  article  is  quarried  easily  directly  on 
the  coast  in  Nova  Scotia,  is  brought  to  the  coast  cities  by  cheap  barge 
freight  where  it  is  milled,  and  then  again  transported  by  low  water 
rates  for  distribution  all  along  the  Atlantic  coast.,  for  use  in  the  coast 
cities  and  for  shipment  inland. 

By  way  of  illustration,  the  freight  rate  on  wall  plaster  from  New 
York  and  Virginia  producing  points  to  the  city  of  Washington  is 
$2.60  per  ton,  and  as  a  consequence  plaster  made  from  domestic 
gypsum  competes  with  great  difficulty  here  against  plaster  made  from 
Nova  Scotia  gypsum,  milled  at  Chester,  Pa.,  and  New  York  City. 

For  500  miles  inland  mills  using  domestic  gypsum  feel  the  competi- 
tion severely.  Farther  inland,  on  account  of  increasing  freight  rates, 
this  competition  is  not  felt. 

The  domestic  gypsum  mines  and  mills  within  this  radius  of  com- 
petition are  located  in  central  and  western  New  York  and  in  south- 
western Virginia.  Six  or  seven  of  the  50  or  more  mills  in  the  United 
States  are  within  this  zone  of  competition. 

The  Southern  Gypsum  Co.  (Inc.),  built  its  mill  in  southwest  Vir- 
ginia five  years  ago,  counting  on  the  market  in  the  Southeastern 
States,  as  those  markets  stood  under  a  50-cent  tariff.  It  felt  severely 
the  20-cent  reduction  in  1909.  During  the  past  four  years  the  pro- 
duction of  gypsum  in  Virginia  has  grown  from  practically  nothing  to 
90,000  tons  in  1912,  55,000  tons  of  which  were  produced  by  the 
Southern  Gypsum  Co.  and  the  balance  by  a  neighboring  mill. 

This  tonnage  is  not  sufficient  to  permit  of  economic  operation  and 
we  have  been  striving  for  a  yearly  output  of  80,000  tons.  The  effect 
of  a  slight  change  in  competitive  conditions  will  be  realized  when  I 
state  that  the  business  is  handled  on  the  narrow  margin  of  30  to  40 
cents  a  ton,  and  our  markets  are  crowded  back  from  the  coast  at 
every  slight  change  in  this  competitive  condition. 

I  believe  that  you  will  agree  with  me  that  it  was  proper  and  de- 
sirable that  the  statement  made  yesterday  to  the  effect  that  domestic 
production  would  not  be  affected  by  further  reduction  in  the  tariff 
on  crude  gypsum  should  not  go  unchallenged. 


SCHEDULE   B.  469 

PARAGRAPH  88— GYPSUM. 

The  cut  of  40  per  cent  made  by  the  act  of  1909  seemed  to  be 
about  our  full  share  in  the  matter  of  tariff  reduction  for  some  time  to 
come  at  least. 

Mr.  HULL.  From  what  section  do  you  get  your  chief  competition  ? 

Mr.  WELDER.  Competition  from  American  producers  is  strong  and 
active.  Take  the  State  of  Alabama,  as  an  illustration.  Mills  in  cen- 
tral Oklahoma  and  Texas  and  central  Kansas  ship  into  Alabama  on 
a  freight  rate  about  as  good  as  ours.  In  the  city  of  Atlanta,  we  meet 
the  competition  of  this  Nova  Scotia  material  milled  in  New  York  and 
coming  down  by  barge,  landed  at  Brunswick,  and  shipped  inland. 
We  meet  also  western  competition  there. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  does  it  cost  per  ton  to  mine  gypsum  in  Nova 
Scotia  ? 

Mr.  WILDER.  They  do  not  mine.  The  mineral  lies  on  the  surface, 
and  our  material  is  all  underground,  and  we  have  mining  difficulties 
in  connection  with  our  ventilation,  and  so  on.  Their  cost  of  putting 
the  material  on  the  barge  is  small.  Their  cost  of  handling  and  bagg- 
ing down  and  rehandling  twice — putting  the  crude  material  into  the 
mill  at  New  York  and  Chester  and  again  loading  it  onto  the  barges  — 
is  something  less  than  our  freight  rate  into  Washington,  D.  C.,  I 
would  say,  judging  by  the  competition  that  we  meet.  That  rate 
is  $2.60. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ?  [After  a  pause.] 
That  is  all,  Mr.  Wilder. 

Mr.  WILDER.  I  thank  you. 

SOUTHERN  GYPSUM  Co.  (INC.), 
North  Holston,  Smyth  County,  Va.,  January  2,  191t. 
Hon.  CAETER  GLASS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Within  the  last  five  years  the  gypsum  industry  in  Virginia  has  been 
making  rather  notable  growth,  so  that  for  1912  the  total  output  of  gypsum  and  gypsum 
products  from  the  two  mills  in  Virginia  will  be  close  to  100,000  tons. 

The  industry  in  Virginia  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  on  a  paying  basis  yet,  though  pros- 
pects for  the  future  are  encouraging  if  no  unexpected  factors  are  introduced  into  the 
trade  problem. 

The  mill  of  Southern  Gypsum  Co.  was  erected  five  years  ago  and  last  y«ar  the  mill 
of  the  United  States  Gypsum  Co.  was  completed. 

These  mills  were  constructed  on  the  supposition  that  trade  conditions  might  be 
counted  on  as  reasonably  permanent  and  that  no  new  factors  in  the  way  of  competi- 
tion were  probable. 

The  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  bill,  however,  made  a  considerable  reduction  in  the  duty 
of  50  cents  a  ton  which  had  previously  existed  on  gypsum,  and  in  consequence  nar- 
rowed the  market  for  the  Virginia  mills. 

Large  quantities  of  Nova  Scotia  gypsum  are  imported  into  the  United  States,  same 
being  milled  at  Norfolk  for  land  plaster  and  in  New  York  City  for  wall  plaster,  and  by 
cheap  barge  freight  this  material  is  scattered  all  down  the  coast  and  snipped  inland. 

_The  production  conditions  in  Nova  Scotia  are  exceedingly  favorable  while  those  in 
Virginia  are  difficult.  In  Nova  Scotia  the  mineral  is  quarried  on  the  surface  easily, 
while  in  Virginia  it  is  mined  under  severe  difficulties  in  the  way  of  water  and  impuri- 
ties that  must  be  sorted  out. 

Cheap  barge  transportation  moves  the  Nova  Scotia  material  as  against  heavier  rail- 
road freights  on  the  part  of  the  Virginia  mills. 

A  further  reduction  in  the  tariff  will  be  felt  severely  by  the  Virginia  mills,  pushing 
the  farther  inland  their  market  and  so  restricting  it  as  to  render  doubtful  the  profitable 
operation  of  the  mills,  unless  indeed  prices  are  arbitrarily  raised  in  the  restricted  ter- 
ritory near  the  mills  that  now  receive  finished  gypsum  products  at  moderate  prices. 


470  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  88— GYPSTTM. 

Our  competitors,  especially  those  located  in  New  York  City,  will  doubtless  endeavor 
to  make  it  appear  that  no  American  industry  will  be  especially  affected  by  further 
tariff  reduction,  and  this  letter  is  written  so  that  you  may  be  informed  of  the  facts. 

The  writer  believes  in  the  principle  of  tariff  reduction  and  the  general  tariff  policy 
of  the  Democratic  Party  and  at  the  same  time  thinks  it  proper  to  point  out  that  within 
two  years  there  has  been  a  considerable  reduction  in  the  gypsum  tariff,  and  that  if 
ever  the  argument  for  infant  industry  has  existed  in  connection  with  the  tariff  the 
argument  applies  at  every  point  right  now  to  the  Virginia  gypsum. 

The  question  of  tariff  on  gypsum  will  be  considered  by  the  proper  committee  in 
Washington  on  January  7  or  8,  1913.  Your  assistance  in  seeing  to  it  that  the  fact 
that  Virginia  as  a  large  producer  and  has  important  interests  at  stake  is  not  over- 
looked will  be  very  greatly  appreciated. 

Very  truly,  yours,  SOUTHERN  GYPSUM  Co.  (!NC.), 

FRANK  A.  WILDER,  President. 

STATEMENT  OF  MONTAGUE  LESSLER,  ESQ.,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Mr.  LESSLER.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  represent  practically 
the  same  men,  importers  and  manufacturers,  that  I  did  three  years 
ago  at  the  hearing.  I  represent  the  men  on  the  seaboard  who  import 
plaster  rock  and  crude  gypsum  from  the  two  Provinces  in  Canada, 
and  manufacture  it  into  the  material  which,  as  brought  out  hi  the  last 
hearing,  is  around  us  here. 

In  the  little  memoranda  which  I  will  file,  and  which  I  would  like  to 
have  printed  with  these  few  remarks,  I  have  not  attempted  to  elabo- 
rate the  argument  which  was  very  thoroughly  gone  into  at  the  hearing 
in  1909.  The  reasons  which  obtained  then  for  placing  this  article  on 
the  free  list  obtain  to-day. 

The  comment  that  I  would  make  to  the  committee  is  this:  That  it 
has  been  demonstrated  the  reduction  to  30  cents  per  ton  instead  of 
the  50-cent  rate  has  in  no  way  interfered  with  the  domestic  produc- 
tion at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  number  of  the  paragraph  to  which  you 
refer  ? 

Mr.  LESSLER.  Paragraph  88.  The  domestic  production  has  gone 
up  by  leaps  and  bounds,  and  the  last  figure  that  I  obtained  was  in 
1910.  I  notice,  however,  in  your  tariff  handbook  that  the  domestic 
production  in  1910  was  about  $12,000,000.  Curiously  enough  the 
importations  seem  to  have  fallen  off  a  bit. 

The  point  I  care  to  elaborate  is  simply  this,  that  it  is  as  true  to-day 
as  it  was  then  that  the  imported  material  is  a  local  proposition  only 
and  comes  in  contact  with  the  domestic  production  not  at  all.  -The 
farmers'  free  list  as  enacted  in  the  bill  passed  by  this  House  and  the 
Canadian  reciprocity  act  provided  for  gypsum. 

What  I  supposed  would  interest  the  committee  a  bit  was  the  ques- 
tion of  comparative  price  under  the  reduction  to  30  cents.  It  has 
remained  pretty  steady  both  in  the  domestic  and  imported  articles; 
that  is,  the  manufactured  articles  made  of  the  domestic  and  imported 
rock.  This  is  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  all  the  material,  the  coal, 
the  machinery,  and  the  labor  involved  has  to  some  extent,  in  fact,  to 
a  great  extent,  grown  up  very  much  on  the  seaboard. 

A  question  asked  me  at  the  last  hearing  was  on  the  subject  of  the 
income,  as  to  this  being  a  revenue  producer  to  the  Government.  As 
the  committee  ran  see  that  50  cents  a  ton  on  the  importation  of  1907 


SCHEDULE   B.  471 

PARAGRAPH  88— OYPSTJM. 

brought  a  revenue  to  the  Government  of  about  $195,000,  which,  of 
course,  under  the  reduced  30  cents  per  ton,  has  gone  down  in  the 
neighborhood  of  from  $102,000  to  $111,000  a  year. 

It  is  to  be  brought  before  the  committee,  however,  that  very  little 
of  this  remains  to  the  Government,  for  the  reason  that  the  costs  of 
inspection  are  of  course  very  large  and  very  great.  There  is  this 
to  be  added,  that  we  as  importers  have  helped  the  Government  very 
mightily,  and  have  saved  the  Government  many  thousand  of  dollars 
of  expenses  by  our  system  of  weighing  and  looking  after  these  things 
for  the  inspectors  put  there  by  the  Government. 

I  feel  in  the  very  short  time  that  the  committee  wants  to  hear  me, 
and  in  view  of  the  elaborate  argument  made  three  years  ago,  which 
is  so  handy  to  the  committee,  that  there  is  very  little  to  say  except 
to  point  out  to  you  that  with  that  argument  as  a  basis,  with  the  other 
side,  the  opposition,  fully  represented  (and  I  believe  there  is  no  op- 
position to-day),  the  committee  reduced  that  to  20  cents,  and  in 
conference  it  was  put  at  30. 

I  would  respectfully  ask  that  it  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions  ? 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Lessler. 

MEMORANDUM  TO  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS  OP  THE  HOUSE  OP  REP- 
RESENTATIVES, REQUESTING  THAT  PLASTER  ROCK  OR  GYPSUM,  CRUDE,  BE 
PLACED  ON  THE  FREE  LIST. 

A  duty  of  30  cents  per  ton  is  levied  on  all  importations  of  plaster  rock  or  gypsum, 
crude,  in  section  88  of  the  Payne-Aldrich  Tariff  Act.  It  is  respectfully  urged  that  the 
time  has  come  to  place  this  article  on  the  free  list. 

A  very  full  hearing  was  had  on  November  24,  1908,  before  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  at  which  it  was  urged  to  reduce  this  produce  from  50  cents  per  ton,  the 
rate  fixed  in  section  91  of  the  tariff  act  of  1897.  The  argument,  the  examinations, 
and  the  letters  concerning  gypsum  will  be  found  in  volume  1  of  Tariff  Hearings, 
pages  634  to  692.  Based  on  this  hearing  and  these  arguments,  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means  made  the  rate  20  cents  per  ton,  which,  in  conference,  was  finally 
made  30  cents  per  ton  and  enacted  into  law  as  section  88. 

The  reasons  advanced  at  that  time  by  those  in  favor  of  the  reduction  obtain  to-day, 
and  the  arguments  against  it  are  no  stronger  than  those  urged  and  advanced  by  the 
opposition. 

The  native  mining  of  gypsum  has  not  suffered  because  of  the  reduction  of  the  duty, 
but  has  shown  a  gradual  and  healthy  increase,  both  in  the  tonnage  of  the  product  and 
its  value. 

In  1909  the  latest  figures  available  of  the  domestic  ton  were  those  of  1907.  The 
following  is  a  table  of  the  number  of  short  tons  mined  and  the  value  as  given  in  the 
article  "Gypsum"  in  Mineral  Productions  of  the  United  States  for  the  Year  1911: 


Year. 

Tons. 

Value. 

1906... 

1,540,585 

$3,837,975 

1907  

1,751,748 

4,942,264 

1908  

1,721,829 

4,075,824 

1909  

2,252,785 

5,906,738 

1910  

2,379,057 

6,523,029 

It  may  also  be  noted  that  the  census  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Manufactures  on  the 
gypsum  industry  shows  an  increase  of  3  mills  in  the  United  States  calcining  the 
crude  product.  "At  the  time  of  the  hearings  there  were  79  mills  and  there  are  now  82. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  domestic  production  has  not  been  affected  by  the 
lowering  of  the  rate  per  ton  (20  cents)  either  in  quantity  or  value,  and  that  there  is  a 
healthy  natural  growth  to  the  domestic  industry.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  importa- 


472 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  88— GYPSTTM. 

tion  of  the  crude  gypsum  is  so  small  in  proportion  to  the  domestic  product  mined  that 
its  competition  is  really  negligible.  It  might  also  be  added  that  the  use  of  the  im- 
ported crude  gypsum  seems  really  a  local  proposition,  with  the  railway  freight  rates 
considered  and  the  differential  against  the  seaboard  manufacturers. 

Just  one  word  further  as  to  the  domestic  product  calcined.  The  price  per  ton  to 
the  consumer  has  kept  pretty  firm  and  nearly  stable  throughout  the  years  intervening 
since  1909. 

There  has  been  no  increase  in  the  number  of  plants  calcining  the  crude  gypsum 
imported  from  Nova  Scotia,  Cape  Britton,  and  New  Brunswick.  The  crude  gypsum 
is  brought  to  the  Atlantic  seaboard  to  ports  between  the  extreme  points  of  Portland, 
Me.,  and  Norfolk,  Va. 

The  following  table  shows  the  tons  imported  and  their  value,  with  the  amounts 
ind  duties  paid  from  1906  to  date.  These  figures  are  taken  from  the  Government 
publication,  Imported  Merchandise  Entered  for  Consumption  in  the  United  States 
and  Duties  Collected  Thereon.  (See  also,  Imports  and  duties  1894  to  1907.) 


Year. 

Tons. 

Value. 

Duties. 

1906                                          .   . 

383,712 

$446,  769 

$191,856 

1907                       

390,065 

457,047 

195,  032 

1908                                               .                   

300,158 

314,845 

150  078 

1909               

288,740 

341,  309 

144,  370 

1910: 
Tariff  act  1897  

52,984 

63,435 

26,492 

Tariff  act  1909                                                  .  ' 

287,355 

344,470 

86  206 

1911                 

342,  528 

408,151 

102,758 

1912 

363,658 

426,394 

109  197 

On  the  amount  imported  during  the  year  1912,  264,382  tons  arrived  at  the  port  of 
New  York,  valued  at  $303,538,  and  paying  a  duty  of  $79,314.  From  July  1,  1912,  to 
November  30,  1912,  there  arrived  at  the  port  of  New  York  148,500  tons,  valued  at 
$170,560,  and  paying  a  duty  of  $44,550. 

It  would  seem  from  these  figures  that  there  has  not  been  a  gain  in  the  tonnage 
imported,  while  the  domestic  producer  has  gained  largely. 

It  might  be  added,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  this  tonnage  may  become  larger,  as 
it  involves  the  use  of  American  ships,  barges,  and  lighters  and  the  employment  of 
more  men  to  carry  the  product. 

At  the  hearing  in  1908  it  was  urged  that  in  addition  to  an  absence  of  reason  based 
on  the  protection  theory  for  the  placing  of  this  duty,  that  it  was  not  even  a  real  revenue 
measure.  At  that  time  it  was  figured  that  the  gross  return  to  the  Government  was 
about  $195,000  a  year  based  on  an  importation  in  1907  of  390,000  tons  of  crude  gypsum. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Government  had  to  expend  an  appreciable  part 
of  this  money  to  inspect  and  oversee  the  tonnage.  Were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the 
importers  aid  the  Government  by  the  use  of  patented  machinery,  hoists,  lefts,  etc., 
in  the  weighing  and  inspection,  there  would  be  nothing  left  for  the  Government  from 
this  duty. 

Based  on  the  1912  figure  with  the  importation  of  363,658  tons  of  unground  gypsum, 
the  gross  revenue  to  the  Government  was  $109,197;  hardly  a  revenue  producer  of  any 
importance  to  the  Government,  when  the  cost  of  inspecting  and  weighing  is  taken 
therefrom. 

The  1S97  tariff  placed  a  duty  of  50  cents  per  ton  on  crude  gypsum  (sec.  91),  which 
was.  as  ha.s  been  slated,  reduced  to  30  cents  per  ton  in  the  1909  oill.  (See  sec.  88.) 

The  act  of  July  2(i,  191  1,  chapter  3  (Canadian  reciprocity  act),  placed  plaster  rock 
or  gypsum,  crude,  on  the  free  list,  probably  on  the  theory  of  a  general  reduction  on 
the  raw  material. 

The  figures  and  estimates  as  to  production,  coste  in  Canada  and  the  United  States 
of  the  mined  product,  as  well  as  those  concerning  labor,  freight  rates  (both  water  and 
railway!  have  maintained  about  the  same  parity  as  1909,  when  adduced  before  this 
committee  at  the  hearing  on  November  28  of  that  year. 

It  should  be  remembered,  and  it  is  true  now  as  it  was  then,  that  your  petitioners 
are  situated  in  a  large  community,  that  their  plants  represent  large  investments,  that 
they  employ  some  thousands  of  laborers,  skilled  and  unskilled,  whose  wages  have 
advanced;  that  their  plants  are  permanent,  stable,  solidly  built  mills,  that  each  pays 
a  Inree  amount  of  taxes,  to  sav  nothing  of  the  restriction?  imposed  by  the  authorities 
regulating  the  safety  of  the  buildings  and  the  health  of  the  workers.  All  this  means 


SCHEDULE   B.  473 

PARAGRAPH  88— GYPSUM. 

large  gums  of  money,  and  the  industry  does  need  a  lowering  or  abolition  of  the  duty  on 
the  crude  rock  to  maintain  ita  stability  in  the  face  of  a  larger  and  larger  domestic 
output,  which  has  the  advantage  of  cheaper  initial  coat,  very  much  cheaper  running 
expense,  a  decided  differential  in  its  favor  in  railway  freight  rates,  and  endless  and 
bottomless  pits  with  undeveloped  areas  as  a  source  of  supply  of  their  raw  material. 

It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  plaster  rock  or  gypsum,  crude,  be  placed  on  the 
free  list. 
Dated,  New  York,  January  8,  1913. 

J.  B.  KING  &  Co., 

17  State  Street,  New    York  City. 
KEYSTONE  PLASTER  Co.,  Chester,  Pa. 
HIGGINSON  MANUFACTURING  Co., 

Newburgh,  N.    Y. 
ROCK  PLASTER  MANUFACTURING  Co., 

New   York  City. 
CONNECTICUT  ADAMANT  Co., 

New  Haven,  Conn. 
WOTHERSPOON  PLASTER  MILLS  (!NC.), 

Long  Island  City,  N.    Y. 

(Counsel,  Montague  Lessler,  31  Nassau  Street,  Borough  of  Manhattan,  New  York 
City.) 

BRIEF  OF  THE  NEWARK  LIME  &  CEMENT  MANUFACTURING  CO., 

NEWARK,   N.  J. 

NEW  YORK,  January  6,  19 IS. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  considering  the  rearrangement  of  the  tariff,  I  urgently  recommend 
that  crude  gypsum  be  placed  upon  the  free  list.  This  is  the  raw  material  used  in  the 
extensive  manufacture  of  plaster  of  Paris  along  the  Atlantic  coast  of  the  United  States. 
For  many  years — until  the  present  tariff  was  instituted — it  was  on  the  free  list.  The 
duty  brings  the  Government  very  little  revenue,  and  in  addition  to  the  direct  handi- 
cap which  it  imposes  upon  the  manufacturing  business  here,  it  entails  other  dis- 
astrous consequences  upon  plaster  manufacturing  concerns  on  the  eastern  seaboard. 
I  do  not  believe  in  any  instance  the  Government  weigher  actually  weighs  the  cargo 
as  discharged.  Physical  conditions  are  such  to  make  necessary  that  the  material 
should  be  weighed  on  the  scales  of  the  consignee,  by  his  employees;  the  customs 
inspector  only  oversees  the  procedure  in  a  general  way.  As  a  consequence,  very 
unsatisfactory  disputes  as  to  quantities  and  settlements  are  continually  arising. 

In  1908,  before  the  present  tariff  law  was  enacted,  there  were  nine  plaster  manu- 
facturing concerns  in  operation  along  the  coast  using  Canadian  rock — four  in  New  York, 
one  in  New  Jersey,  one  in  Maine,  one  in  Pennsylvania,  one  in  Connecticut,  and  one  in 
Boston.  Now  the  number  has  been  reduced  to  five,  there  being  three  in  operation  in 
New  York,  one  in  New  Jersey,  and  one  in  Connecticut.  This  is  due  largely  to  the 
competition  of  plaster  from  the  interior  of  the  United  States,  which  is,  even  at  the 
seaboard,  driving  out  of  use  that  made  from  Canadian  gypsum.  It  is  only  for  the  higher 
grades  of  product  that  the  plaster  made  from  Canadian  rock  is  used  throughout  the 
interior  of  the  country;  and  it  is  very  unfair  that  this  tariff  discrimination  should  be 
made  between  the  citizens  of  the  same  country.  There  is  no  foreign  plaster  imported, 
and  the  only  effect  of  the  duty  is  to  give  some  United  States  manufacturers,  who 
already  have  great  natural  advantages,  an  unfair  advantage  over  their  competitors. 

An  indirect  effect  of  the  duty  is  also  to  impose  an  unnecessary  tax  upon  the  users 
of  plaster  of  paris,  who  necessarily  require  this  grade  of  goods.  In  conformity  with 
the  effect  of  duties  on  raw  materials,  the  final  cost  to  the  consumer  is  reflected  in  a 
much  higher  price  than  that  indicated  by  the  tariff  exaction  itself.  The  argument! 
for  aiid  against  this  duty  were  set  forth  in  the  tariff  hearings  before  the  then  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means,  under  date  of  November  24, 1908,  copy  of  which  I  inclose  herewith. 
I  would  especially  call  your  attention  in  this  pamphlet  to  the  information  regarding 
the  gypsum  combination  of  interior  manufacturers.  The  evidence  clearly  showi 
artificial  control  of  prices  and  a  desire  to  control  competition  through  tariff  impositions. 


474  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE  STONE. 

Trusting  that  gypsum  will  be  placed  upon  the  free  list,  and  offering  no  objection 
to  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  duty  on  manufactured  plaster. 
I  remain,  youre,  respectfully, 

CALVIN  TOMKINS, 
President  Newark  Plaster  Co. 
(Successors  to  Newark  Lime  &  Cement  Manufacturing  Co.) 

PARAGRAPH  89. 

Pumice  stone,  wholly  or  partially  manufactured,  three-eighths  of  one  cent 
per  pound;  unmanufactured,  valued  at  fifteen  dollars  or  less  per  ton,  thirty 
per  centum,  ad  valorem;  valued  at  more  than  fifteen  dollars  per  ton,  one-fourth 
of  one  cent  per  pound ;  manufactures  of  pumice  stone  or  of  which  pumice  stone 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  sec- 
tion, thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PUMICE  STONE. 

STATEMENT  OF    ELMER  R.  MURPHEY,    PRESIDENT  OF  JAMES 
H.  RHODES  &  CO.,  CHICAGO,  ILL.,  AND  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  My  name  is  Elmer  R.  Murphey,  president  of  James 
H.  Rhodes  &  Co.,  of  Chicago,  111.,  and  New  York. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  paragraph  do  you  appear  in  reference  to? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  Paragraph  87,  with  reference  to  pumice  stone. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  We  are  in  the  pumice-stone  business. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  Are  you  an  importer? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  We  are  grinders.  We  import  our  grinding  rock 
and  grind  it  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  paragraph  you  are  interested  in  is  89. 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  That  is  my  mistake. 

Pumice  stone  unmanufactured  (pezzame),  valued  at  $15  per  ton  or  less,  at  30  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  which,  at  32  shillings  per  ton  f.  o.  b.  point 
of  shipment,  which  is  Oanneto,  Italy,  is  equivalent  to  a  duty  of  $2.35  per  ton. 

Pumice  stone  wholly  or  partially  manufactured  (or  powdered  pumice),  three-eighths 
cent  per  pound,  or  $8.40  per  ton. 

Net  protection:  Is  the  difference  between  $8.40  on  the  manufactured,  which  we 
use  for  grinding  purposes,  and  the  manufactured  or  powdered,  or  $6.05  per  ton. 

Lump  pumice,  one-fourth  cent  per  pound:  But  under  this  wording  the  customs 
authorities  have  been  assessing  three-eighths  cent  per  pound  on  any  lump  pumice 
which  had  the  corners  filed  off,  claiming  it  was  partially  manufactured. 

Manufactures  of  pumice  stone,  or  of  which  pumice  stone  is  the  component  mate- 
rial of  chief  value,  not  especially  provided  for,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

TARIFF    DESIRED. 

Pumice,  unmanufactured,  valued  at  $15  per  ton  or  less,  should  be  admitted  free,  aa 
it  is  our  crude  material  for  grinding  purposes. 

Pumice  stone  wholly  or  partially  manufactured  should  remain  at  three-eighths  cent 
per  pound. 

Lump  pumice  stone  should  be  admitted  free.  It  should  also  include  lumps  which 
have  been  filed  or  rolled  which  is  done  for  convenience  in  packing  and  to  save  break- 
age in  transit  and  for  no  other  purpose. 

Manufactures  of  pumice  stone  or  of  which  pumice  stone  is  the  component  material 
of  chief  value  not  specially  jarovided  for,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Reasons  for  free  items. — Is  one  of  this  product  is  produced  in  the  United  States. 

Reasons  for  duty  of  three-eighths  of  a  cent  on  manufactured. — -Pumice  stone  manufac- 
tured in  Italy  is  being  sold  in  bags  f.  o.  b.  docks  New  York  at  $18.50  per  ton  of  2,000 
pounds  (that  is,  after  the  United  States  duty  has  been  paid). 

Thus,  the  United  States  custom  records  demonstrate  that  the  Italians  can  grind, 
pack,  and  deliver  at  the  dock  at  New  York  ground  pumice  stone  at  $11  per  ton.  We  are 
willing  to  produce  invoices,  quotations,  and  refer  to  importations  at  this  figure. 


SCHEDULE  B.  475 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE   STONE. 

American  cost  of  production  of  powdered  Italian  pumice  stone. — In  1908  was  $23  per 
ton,  but  since  that  time  is  higher  because  of  the  grinding  rock  costing  more  in  Italy, 
ocean  freight  rate  being  75  cents  per  ton  higher  (with  a  further  advance  scheduled  for 
1913),  and  the  duty  being  over  $1  per  ton  more,  so  that  our  present  cost  of  producing 
is  over  $25.51  per  ton. 

Conclusion  as  to  the  facts. — If  the  unmanufactured  pumice,  which  is  our  grinding  rock, 
came  in  free  it  would  reduce  our  cost  of  production  $2.35,  which  would  give  us  a  net 
cost  of  $21.15  per  ton,  as  compared  to  the  cost  of  pumice  ground  in  Italy  of  $18.50  per 
ton  f.  o.  b.  New  York,  which  we  are  obliged  to  compete  with. 

The  present  ocean  freight  rate  from  the  Lipari  Islands  to  New  York  on  Italian  ground 
pumice  stone  is  14  shillings  per  ton  or  $3.45  in  American  money  per  long  ton.  On  the 
unmanufactured  or  pumice  in  small  lumps  which  we  grind  the  rate  is  18  shillings  6 
pence  or  $4.56  per  ton,  owing  to  its  greater  bulk,  thus  putting  us  to  an  additional  disad- 
vantage of  $1.11  per  ton  in  ocean  freight  alone. 

Wages  in  Italy. — With  which  we  compete  in  selling  American  ground  powdered 
pumice.  The  women  and  girls  who  work  in  the  pumice  get  20  cents  per  day  and  the 
men  get  from  60  cents  to  $1  per  day  of  11  net  hours  in  the  summer  and  10£  hours  in  the 
winter.  This  is  from  personal  knowledge  of  the  writer  gathered  during  his  several 
visits  to  Italy  and  information  gathered  by  our  buyer  in  Italy,  and  is  supported  by 
the  statistics  at  the  Washington,  D.  C.,  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  as  to  the 
average  daily  wage  in  Sicily. 

The  difference  in  their  co&t  of  production  is  made  up  largely  of  labor  and  wages, . 
rent,  etc.     We  append  a  schedule  as  to  the  wages  in  Lipari  in  1912,  where  all  the 
pumice  stone  is  ground,  and  the  wages  we  pay: 

Common  labor:  Per  day. 

Italy $0.  50 

New  York 2.  00 

Carpenter  or  engineer: 

Italy 80 

New  York 4. 00 

We  have  no  advantage  of  the  Italian  grinder  because  of  any  labor-saving  machinery, 
for  we  both  use  practically  the  same  kind  of  a  plant. 

Wages  in  our  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  mill. — In  Brooklyn  we  pay  from  $2  to  $3  per  day  of 
10  hours'  work  and  close  half  a  day  on  Saturday. 

Our  rent  in  Brooklyn  is  $3.150  per  year.  In  Italy  our  warehouse  of  practically  the 
same  dimensions  costs  us  $300  per  year. 

Furthermore,  this  pumice  is  ground  by  prison  labor  who  are  paid  10  cents  per  day 
by  the  Government  and  thereby  forced  to  work  in  the  mills  in  order  to*exist.  The 
Government  has  held  they  were  technically  not  convicts  because  locked  up  only  at 
night. 

Letter  No.  90178  of  December  13,  1912,  from  the  Treasury  Department,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  written  after  the  personal  investigation  of  United  States  Consul  Garrels  on  a 
visit  at  the  Lipari  Islands  in  August,  1912,  reads  in  part  as  follows: 

"Part  of  the  product  of  the  pumice  stone  mills  at  Canneto,  Lipari,  is  manufactured 
by  criminal  convicts  who  are  undergoing  the  fourth  degree  of  punishment  prescribed 
by  the  Italian  penal.  They  are  furnished  lodging  at  lire  0.50  ($0.096)  by  the  Govern- 
ment, which  is  not  enough  to  keep  them,  and  they  work  in  the  pumice  mills,  etc.,  to 
make  a  living.  About  70  are  employed  in  various  grades  of  labor  in  the  pumice-stone 
mills,  where  they  earn  from  2  lire  (40  cents)  to  4  lire  (80  cents)  per  day,  and  this  is  the 
scale  of  wages  for  common  labor  and  is  in  keeping  with  that  obtained  generally  in 
Sicily  in  the  districts  more  remote  from  the  larger  manufacturing  and  industrial 
center. 

"It  is  the  opinion  of  the  department  that  the  term  'convict  labor'  as  used  in 
section  14  applies  only  to  the  enforced  labor  of  convicts  and  does  not  include  labor 
voluntarily  rendered  to  individuals. 

"For  adequate  compensation  under  sentences  similar  to  those  mentioned  it  is 
therefore  also  of  the  opinion  that  the  manufacturer 'of  pumice  stone  under  the  con- 
ditions cited  above  is  not  convict  labor  within  the  meaning  and  intent  of  the  said 
section  14  and  the  pumice  stone  so  manufactured  is  not  prohibitive  importation 
under  this  section."  (J.  F.  Curtis,  Assistant  Secretary.) 

Therefore,  we  may  not  expect  relief  from  the  law  prohibiting  the  importation  of 
•  merchandise  manufactured  by  convict  labor. 

Estimate  of  increase  or  decrease  in  imports. — These  changes  in  duty  would  make 
no  difference  whatever  in  gross  imports  of  all  grades,  as  the  article  is  such  an  unim- 
portant one.  The  average  buyer  purchases  from  one  to  five  barrels  and  less  than 


476  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE  STONE. 

$100  worth  a  year,  and  we  are  obliged  to  draw  all  of  our  supply  from  Italy.  The 
change  asked  would  enable  American  grinders  to  more  successfully  compete  with 
the  cheap  foreign  labor. 

Free  competition  in  United  States. — We  might  add  that  there  is  in  the  United  States 
no  association  nor  agreement  among  pumice  grinders,  nor  is  one  possible,  as  any 
grinding  mill  could,  with  the  same  plant,  reduce  pumice  to  a  powder,  providing  the 
market  price  would  allow  him  a  profit. 

.'i'f---'  JAMES  H.  RHODES  &  Co., 

ELMER  R.  MURPHEY,  President, 

Chicago  and  New  York. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  notice  on  this  line  of  assignment  that  you  are 
defined  as  being  "favorable."  Favorable  to  what? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  This  is  my 
brief. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Favorable  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty,  or  what  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  We  want  a  reduction  in  our  raw  materials  that  we 
use  for  grinding. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  you  want  is  increased  protection  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  More  than  you  are  getting  now  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  was  not  sure  whether  you  were  unfavorable  to 
a  reduction  in  duty  generally  or  to  an  increase. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  want  an  increased  duty  on  the  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  wants  free  raw  materials,  and  the  same 
duty  on  the  finished  product. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  want  to  take  the  tariff  off  of  the  raw  materials  ? 

Mr.  MURPIIRY.  Yes,  sir;  outside  of  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Would  you  lower  the  price  of  the  manufactured 
goods  to  correspond  to  the  reduction  in  the  duty  on  raw  materials? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  Yes;  we  would  reduce  the  price  of  our  manufac- 
tures. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  You  want  the  duty  on  manufactured  products 
under  the  present  law  reduced  to  correspond  with  the  reduction  on 
free  raw  materials  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  No,  sir;  we  ask  for  the  same  duty  of  three-eighths 
of  a,  cent  on  material  which  is  ground  in  Italy. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Did  you  appear  before  the  committee  four  years  ago? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  We  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  One  gentleman  appeared  here  asking  for  an  increased 
duty  on  pumice  stone.  I  did  not  know  whether  you  were  the  gen- 
tleman or  not. 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  total  output  of  that  product  in  the  United 
States  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  A  little  over  5,000  tons,  Mr.  James. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  amount  is  imported? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  Of  the  material  we  ground,  3,900  tons  came  in  in 
1911  and  3,100  tons  in  1912. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTTT    How  many  men  do  you  employ? 

Mr.  MURPHEI.  About  35. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Reisinger. 


SCHEDULE   B.  477 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE   STONE. 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  I  have  another  brief  here  which  I  would  like  to  file 
in  relation  to  paragraph  89,  covering  pumice  stone,  where  the  duty  is 
35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Relative  to  paragraph  89,  covering  pumice  stone,  part  of  which  reads  as  follows: 
"Manufactures  of  pumice  stone,  or  of  which  pumice  stone  is  the  component  article  of 
chief  value,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

How  applied. — We  herewith  hand  you  some  small  shapes  of  pumice  stone  mainly 
used  for  toilet  purposes,  which  properly  come  under  this  neading. 

But  the  appraisers  have  been  assessing  an  imitation  pumice  brick  which  contains  no 
pumice  at  all,  but  which  is  made  entirely  out  of  clay  and  flint,  at  35  per  cent,  using  this 
paragraph  as  their  authority. 

I  hand  you  a  sample  of  this  brick  known  as  Bimsstein  Fabrik,  or  imitation  pumice 
brick. 

Changes  desired. — We  quote  an  extract  from  paragraph  90.  as  follows :  ' '  Clays  or  earths 
wrought  or  manufactured  not  especially  provided  for  in  this  section  $2  per  ton." 

We  ask  that  part  of  it  be  changed  to  read  as  follows:  "Clays  or  earths,  wrought  or 
manufactured,  including  rubbing,  scouring,  or  polishing  bricks  or  powders.  In  this 
way  there  would  be  no  question  about  this  brick  being  properly  classified. 

Whatever  duty  your  committee  finally  determine  shall  apply  on  this  clause  as  to 
"Clays  and  earth  wrought  and  manufactured,"  we  would  ask  apply  to  this  imitation 
pumice  brick. 

I  personally  have  at  several  times  visited  the  factory  in  Germany  where  this  brick 
is  manufactured,  and  know  that  65  per  cent  of  the  brick  is  made  of  a  special  clay, 
with  35  per  cent  of  flint  added. 

Increased  importation. — It  is  our  opinion  that  there  will  be  little  or  no  change  because 
of  properly  classifying  this  article  under  paragraph  90,  as  suggested. 

Not  produced  here. — Some  years  ago  we  endeavored  to  find  the  same  crude  material 
in  the  United  States  to  enable  us  to  manufacture  the  brick  here,  but  nothing  of  the 
same  character  could  be  found. 

American  labor. — There  never  has  been  one  pound  of  this  made  in  America  to  date. 
Therefore,  any  changes  in  the  tariff  are  in  no  way  competing  with  or  supplanting  Ameri- 
can labor. 

The  raw  material  could  not  be  imported  and  manufactured  into  these  brick  forms 
with  the  present  duty  or  a  higher  duty  and  compete  with  the  foreign-made  article. 

Therefore,  the  present  duty  is  protecting  no  one  but  only  operates  as  a  tax  on  the 
American  manufacturer. 

Yours,  very  truly,  JAMES  H.  RHODES  &  Co., 

ELMER  R.  MURPHEY,  President, 

Chicago  and  New  York. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  give  your  suggestion  consideration  when 
the  matter  comes  up. 

Mr.  HILL.  Where  is  the  pumice  stone  produced  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  MURPHEY.  TKere  is  none  producea  in  this  country.  There  is  a 
volcanic  ash,  which  is  produced  in  the  West. 

Under  date  of  January  15,  1913,  the  following  additional  com- 
munication was  filed: 

NEW  YORK,  January  15,  191S. 
Subject:  Paragraph  89. 
OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  Referring  to  our  brief,  in  further  explanati«n,  would  say  that  the 
customhouse  have  in  many  cases  been  assessing  this  bimsstein  on  paragraph  95,  which 
is  a  catchall  for  anything  not  specified  in  the  other  paragraphs  and  which  carries  a 
duty  of  35  per  cent. 

It  was  our  idea  that  paragraph  95  was  to  cover  such  manufactures  of  clay  as  retorts 
and  vessels  of  that  kind  but  was  not  intended  to  cover  a  manufacture  of  clay  in  the 
form  of  a  scouring  or  rubbing  brick. 

There  has  never  been  any  contention  by  the  custom  authorities  during  the  later 
periods  but  what  there  was  no  pumice  stone  whatever  in  this  brick,  and  that  it  was 


478  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  89— PTTMICE  STONE. 

entirely  of  a  clay  and  flint  combination  and  is  baked  in  a  kiln  the  same  as  any  ordinary 
brick. 

Yours,  very  truly,  JAMES  H.  RHODES  &  Co., 

E.  R.  MURPHEY,  President. 

BRIEF  OF  R.  J.  WADDELL  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

R.  J.  WADDELL  &  Co., 

New  York,  January  S,  1913. 

SCHUMACHERSCHE    FABRIK    OR   GERMAN    RUBBING   BRICKS. 

Under  the  present  tariff  of  1909,  we  have  been  obliged  to  pay  duty  on  the  above  as 
classified  under  the  last  clause  of  paragraph  89. 

We  have  protested  against  this,  as  we  believe  it  is  not  properly  classified  and  should 
not  come  in  under  this  heading.  Previous  to  the  Din^ley  tariff  these  German  bricks 
were  admitted  free,  and  in  our  opinion  they  should  still  be  on  the  free  list,  and  cer- 
tainly 35  per  cent  is  an  excessive  duty. 

These  bricks  can  not  be  manufactured  in  the  United  States.  They  are  made  from 
disintegrated  clay  and  baked,  and  the  material  from  which  these  bricks  are  made 
has  never  been  found  in  this  country. 

If  not  on  the  free  list  they  should  be  classified  under  paragraph  90,  and  this  para- 
graph should  be  changed  to  read  as  follows: 

"Clays  and  earths  un wrought  or  unmanufactured,  $1  per  ton;  wrought  or  manu- 
factured, including  rubbing,  scouring,  or  cleaning  bricks,  $2  per  ton." 

HONES   AND    WHETSTONES. 

We  are  importers  of  the  Tarn  O'Shanter  and  Water  of  Ayr  hone  stones  found  in  Scot- 
land. Under  the  1909  tariff  hones  and  whetstones  are  on  the  free  list. 

"\Ve  import  these  hones  in  various  sizes  and  various  shapes.  Previous  to  the  Dingley 
tariff  all  hones  were  on  the  free  list — no  matter  in  what  shape  or  size  they  were 
imported.  Recently  the  Board  of  Appraisers  has  made  a  distinction,  claiming  that 
some  hones  were  dutiable  and  others  free,  and  the  matter  has  been  in  controversy 
during  the  last  seven  or  eight  years,  and  we  never  know  what  duty  we  shall  be  obliged 
to  pay.  Decisions  have  varied  from  putting  them  on  the  free  list  to  20  to  35  per  cent. 

It  will  at  once  appear  evident  to  your  committee  how  unjust  this  is  to  the  importer, 
and  we  would  ask  that  the  paragraph  be  changed  to  read : 

"Hones  or  whetstones  of  whatever  size  or  shape,  whether  for  sharpening  or  other 
purposes,  free." 

This  would  not  interfere  with  any  American  product,  or,  in  our  judgment,  conflict 
with  any  other  interest.  We  have  been  unable  to  tell  since  the  last  tariff  went  into 
effect  what  duty  we  would  have  to  pay,  and  we  have  frequently  sold  the  hones  at  a 
loss,  thinking  they  were  coming  in  under  the  free  list,  and  in  several  months  we  would 
receive  an  additional  duty  notice. 

Can  not  the  paragraph  be  made  clear,  so  as  to  avoid  this  trouble  to  the  importer? 

CUSTOMS  TARIFF  OF  AUGUST,  1909,  PARAGRAPH  89. 

"Pumice  stone,  unmanufactured,  under  $15  per  ton,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

"  Lump  pumice  stone,  over  $15  per  ton,  at  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

"Manufactured  ground  pumice  stone  at  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound." 

Under  the  above  tariff,  our  small  lump  pumice  stone  for  grinding,  called  pezzame, 
pays  a  duty  of  $2.05  per  thousand  kilos,  or  2,20(^pounds. 

At  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound  the  duty  on  the  Italian  ground  pumice  stone 
is  $8.25  per  thousand  kilos,  or  2,200  pounds,  which  shows  nominally  a  protection  of 
$6.20  per  2.200  pounds,  which  is  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
manufacturing. 


SCHEDULE   B.  479 

PABAGBAPH  89-  PUMICE   STONE. 

The  lowest  price  at  which  we  can  manufacture  our  ground  pumice  stone  in  our  fac- 
tory in  Brooklyn,  from  the  imported  lump,  is  as  follows: 

Per  ton. 
The  cost  of  pumice  stone  for  grinding,  including  freight  to  New  York,  £2  7s..  $11.  47 

Duty  on  pumice  stone,  at  30  per  cent  (less  freight) 2.  05 

Lighterage  from  steamer  dock  to  Brooklyn  dock 88 

Cartage  from  Brooklyn  dock  to  factory,  at  2  cents  per  bag .34 

Cost  of  grinding,  including  kiln  drying,  loss  of  weight,  wages,  power,  bolting 

cloth,  etc 8.00 

About  six  barrels  required  for  each  ton,  at  30  cents  each 1.  80 

24.54 

The  total  net  cost  of  $24.54  per  ton  is  as  low  aa  we  can  possibly  turn  out  our  product. 

The  Italian  ground  pumice  stone  can  be  imported  into  this  country,  including  the 
payment  of  three-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound  duty,  at  a  cost  under  1  cent  per  pound. 

From  the  above  figures  it  must  be  perfectly  clear  that  the  nominal  protection  of 
$6.20  per  ton,  as  stated  above,  is  not  sufficient  to  protect  the  American  manufacturer, 
and  we  would  request,  as  due  us  as  American  manufacturers,  that  the  above  para- 
graph 89  be  changed  to  read  as  follows: 

"All  lump  pumice  stone  should  be  admitted  free.  Foreign  ground  pumice  stone 
should  remain  at  three-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound . ' ' 

The  above  change  would  benefit  the  American  manufacturer  or  grinder  of  Italian 
lump  pumice  stone  and  would  not  interfere  with  any  grinder  of  any  domestic  material. 

There  has  never  been  any  pumice  stone  found  in  the  United  States  that  could  be 
substituted  for  use  in  the  arts,  and  it  is  necessary  to  import  this  article  from  Italy.  It 
is  a  raw  material,  and  the  manufacturer  is  entitled  to  have  his  raw  product  free. 

Also  consider  the  difference  in  cost,  which  an  American  manufacturer  has  to  con- 
tend with.  Our  plant  represents  an  investment  of  fully  $60,000.  The  wages  paid  are 
from  $2  to  $3  per  day,  with  a  half  day  on  Saturday.  The  hours  of  labor  are  much  longer 
in  Italy  and  the  wages  less  than  a  third  of  what  we  have  to  pay. 

We  desire  the  following  changes  in  Schedule  B,  paragraph  89,  for  reasons  stated 
below: 

All  lump  pumice  stone  free. 

Ground  pumice  stone  at  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

This  leaves  the  duty  on  the  ground  pumice  stone  the  same  as  before. 

We  are  importers  and  grinders  of  small  lump  pumice  stone,  which  we  must  import 
from  Italy,  ae  there  is  no  genuine  pumice  stone  found  in  the  United  States.  We  can 
not  import  and  grind  pumice  stone  ready  for  the  market  under  $24.76.  We  figure  our 
cost  as  follows: 

The  cost  of  pumice  stone  for  grinding,  including  freight  to  New  York,  $11.69  per  ton; 
duty  on  pumice  stone  at  30  per  cent  (less  freight),  $2.05  per  ten;  lighterage  from 
steamer  to  Brooklyn  dock,  $0.88  per  ton;  cartage  from  Brooklyn  dock  to  factory,  at 
2  cents  per  bag,  $6.34  per  ton;  cost  of  grinding,  including  kiln-drying,  loss  of  weight, 
wages,  power,  bolting  cloth,  etc.,  $8  per  ton;  about  6  barrels  required  for  each  ton,  at 
30  cents  each,  $1.80  per  ton;  total,  $24.76  per  ton. 

The  net  cost  of  $24.76  per  ton  is  as  low  as  we  can  possibly  turn  out  our  product 
ready  for  the  market. 

The  Italian  ground  pumice  stone  can  be  imported  into  this  country,  including  the 
payment  of  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound  duty,  at  a  cost  to  us  of  $19  per  ton  on 
dock.  This  gives  the  foreign  goods  an  advantage  of  $5.76.  At  the  present  rate  of 
duty — 30  per  cent  on  our  small-lump  pumice  stone — our  duty  is  about  $2.05  per  ton. 
The  duty  on  ]  ton  of  the  Italian  ground  pumice  is  $8.25.  This  would  seem  to  give 
a  nominal  protection  of  $6.20,  but  notice  the  above  statement  that  with  the  duty 
paid  on  the  Italian  ground,  they  can  still  offer  it  in  this  market  at  $5.76  under  our  cost. 

\Ve  are  not  asking  anything  unreasonable  when  we  request  that  the  duty  on  our 
raw  material  be  taken  off,  which  would  give  us  $2.05,  making  our  cost  $22.71,  and 
leaving  the  Italian  st'll  $3.71  under  our  cost.  We  are  able  to  partially  offset  this 
advantage  in  the  Italian  grinding  by  giving  a  better  and  more  uniform  product;  this 
is  the  only  advantage  we  have.  The  cost  of  labor  here  is  fully  three  times  as  much  as 
it  is  in  Lipari,  and  other  costs  of  maintaining  a  plant  in  America  in  proportion. 

We  trust  the  members  of  your  committee  will  not  be  unduly  influenced  because 
certain  interests  in  the  United  States  may  have  in  the  past  been  unduly  protected, 
and  conclude  that  all  business  can  be  maintained  against  unfavorable  advantages. 
Pumice  stone  is  only  a  small  business.  The  consumer  will  never  suffer  from  any 


480  TABIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE  STONE. 

changes  we  have  asked  for  in  the  tariff,  and  it  would  enable  us  as  manufacturers  to 
exist. 

Shall  be  glad  to  furnish  your  committee  any  additional  information  desired. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

R.  J.  WADDELL  &  Co. 

MEMORIAL   OF  THE    ITALIAN    CHAMBER    OF    COMMERCE,  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  This  chamber  desires  to  submit  to  the  consideration  of  this  honorable  commit- 
tee the  following  observations  on  the  revision  of  the  herein-stated  articles,  included 
in  Schedule  B  (earth,  earthenware,  and  glassware). 

Pumice  stone. — Unmanufactured  pumice  stone,  viz:  Pumice  stone  in  lumps  is 
practically  all  imported  in  this  country  from  the  Lipari  Islands,  located  not  far  off 
the  northeastern  snore  of  Sicily. 

Although  deposits  of  pumice  stone  exist  in  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Utah,  and  Nevada, 
only  of  late  years  have  they  begun  to  be  exploited,  and  domestic  production  is  yet 
carried  on  on  a  small  scale,  and  to  all  practical  purposes  the  Lipari  Islands  remain  the 
only  source  of  supply  of  this  article  possessing  the  qualities  required  for  its  use. 

Pumice  is  used  as  an  abrasive  by  manufacturers  of  furniture,  carriages,  and  other 
wooden  articles,  metals,  glass,  bone,  and  other  manufactures,  and  more  extensively 
as  a  filler  for  scouring,  cleaning,  and  polishing  material,  and  for  paint. 

The  imported  unmanufactured  pumice  does  not  enter  into  competition  with  the 
American  article  for  the  reason  that  the  latter  can  not  conveniently  replace  the  im- 
ported in  the  manifold  purposes  in  which  it  is  utilized. 

The  lump  pumice  imported  from  Italy  in  fiscal  year  1911  to  the  amount  of  5,681 
tons,  valued  at  $54,613  is  now  taxed  with  an  import  duty  of  30  per  cent  if  valued  at 
not  more  than  $15  per  ton,  and  with  a  duty  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  if  valued 
at  more  than  $15  per  ton.  In  the  Dingley  tariff  it  was  rated  at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem 
irrespective  of  value,  and  previous  to  1897  was  admitted  free  of  duty. 

Its  grinding  in  this  country  is  the  object  of  an  industry,  which  needs  this  raw  mate- 
rial. Increased  freights  (at  present  of  about  22  shillings  per  ton,  instead  of  about  19 
shillings,  as  four  years  ago  on  lump  pumice  in  bags)  have  made  the  increase  of  duty 
burdensome  to  the  grinders,  so  that  in  order  to  counteract  the  higher  cost  of  freight, 
the  duty  should  be  reduced  to  its  former  figures  of  15  per  cent  were  it  not  possible  to 
return  this  article  entirely  to  the  free  list. 

Pumice  stone  is  also  imported  in  a  powdered  condition  (in  fiscal  year  1911  to  the 
amount  of  about  3,474  tons),  and  when  it  is  considered  that  its  present  duty  of  $8 
equivalent  to  about  80  per  cent  of  its  value  on  an  article  which,  although  partly  manu- 
factured is  a  necessary  material  to  other  industries,  such  as  the  soap  and  paint  manu- 
factures, that  wages  have  increased  of  late  years  in  the  country  of  origin,  that  freights 
have  increased  at  least  75  cents  per  ton,  which  increase  acts  as  a  protection  to  the 
domestic  grinders  of  the  imported  lump  pumice,  that  the  higher  freight  on  lump  than 
on  ground  pumice  would  be  counterbalanced  by  the  proposed  lowering  of  the  duty  on 
lump  pumice  to  its  former  rate  of  15  per  cent  it  is  evident  that  the  duty  on  ground 
pumice  stone  could  be  reduced  without  injustice  to  domestic  grinders  to  its  former 
figure  of  $fi  ("equivalent  to  about  60  per  cent),  which  is  ample  protection  to  the  mil- 
lers in  this  pountry. 

For  the  above  stated  reasons  this  chamber  respectfully  recommends  that  the  duty 
on  pumice  stone  in  lumps,  valued  at  less  than  $15  per  ton,  be  reduced  from  30  to  15 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  that  the  duty  on  manufactured  pumice  stone  valued  at  more 
than  $15  be  reduced  from  one-fourth  to  one-eighth  of  1  cent  per  pound;  and  finally 
that  on  powdered  pumice  stone  the  present  rate  of  $8  per  ton  be  lowered  to  $6  per  ton. 

Limestone  rock  asphalt. — This  article,  of  much  lesser  value  than  bituminous  or  West 
Indian  asphalt,  contains  no  more  than  15  per  cent,  usually  only  about  12  per  cent,  of 
bitumen. 

It  is  imported  chiefly  from  Hanover,  Germany  (in  fiscal  year  1911,  2,091  tons)  and 
from  Sicily  (Ragusa)  (in  fiscal  year  1911,  6,099  tons)  in  increasing  quantities  (now 
almost  treble  the  quantity  imported  five  years  ago)  owing  to  its  increased  use  in  the 
paving  of  floors  subject  to  concussions,  for  which  purpose  it  is  especially  suited  because, 
provided  it  is  laid  2  inches  thick  over  a  good  concrete  foundation,  it  does  not  crack, 
and  provides  a  flooring  of  long  duration,  impervious  to  water,  which  permits  of  being 
abundantly  washed  with  water  without  injury. 


SCHEDULE  B.  481 

PARAGBAPH  89— PUMICE  STONE. 

Owing  to  the  antiseptic  qualities  of  this  material,  and  signally  to  the  property  of  not 
cracking  and  thus  eliminating  the  accumulation  of  dirt,  that  usually  takes  place  in  the 
crevices  of  other  kinds  of  flooring  which  are  apt  to  crack,  it  is  preferred  for  hygienic 
reasons  in  the  paving  of  toilet  rooms,  stables,  slaughter  houses,  factories,  parkways, 
bridges,  etc. 

Although  deposits  of  rock  asphalt  are  said  to  exist  on  the  Pacific  coast,  they  are 
hardly  exploited,  because  the  product  can  not  economically  be  hauled  to  the  eastern 
markets  owing  to  the  high  freights,  a  situation  which  the  opening  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  and  the  lower  rates  thereby  obtainable,  can  and  will  remedy  better  than  any 
artificial  protection  through  the  tariff. 

This  material  at  present  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  50  cents  per  ton,  equivalent  to  about 
16  per  cent.  With  the  increased  cost  of  transportation,  freights  from  Sicily  have 
increased  of  late  to  about  45  cents  per  ton;  even  a  duty  of  50  cents  per  ton  is  anything 
but  low.  As  it  may,  however,  be  necessary  for  revenue  purposes  to  maintain  it,  this 
chamber  recommends  that  it  remain  unchanged,  as  this  is  a  line  of  asphalt  importa- 
tions which  has  proven  satisfactory  from  a  revenue  standpoint,  the  present  rate  of 
duty  being  the  most  convenient  as  a  revenue  yielder  without  interfering  much  with 
its  increasing  industrial  use. 

Bottles,  fdied. — This  chamber  desires  to  call  the  attention  of  this  honorable  com- 
mittee to  one  of  the  most  fiscal  features  of  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  viz,  that 
provision  charging  duty  on  bottles  imported  filled  with  certain  merchandise,  such 
as  olive  oil,  fish,  olives,  etc.,  which  is  by  itself  subject  to  duty  and,  not  infrequently, 
to  very  high  rates. 

To  charge  duties  on  the  containers  in  such  cases,  as  if  the  container  represented  a 
value  which  it  has  not,  either  for  the  importer  or  the  consumer,  is  not  fair,  considering 
the  already  higher  cost  for  packing  materials  (bottles,  caps,  labels,  etc.)  and  the  higher 
cost  of  transportation  to  which  the  merchandise  put  up  in  such  containers  has  to  stand 
by  reason  of  this  fractional  form  of  packing;  but  it  is  manifestly  unjust  in  the  case 
of  merchandise  contained  in  bottles  bearing  the  brand  or  the  name  of  the  manufac- 
turer in  such  manner  that  it  can  not  be  removed,  thus  rendering  the  containers  unfit 
for  further  commercial  use. 

It  might,  moreover,  be  stated  that  the  duty  on  bottle  containers,  or  the  fiscal  regu- 
lations which  impose  a  duty  in  certain  cases  (as,  for  instance,  in  beans,  peas,  mush- 
rooms, and  truffles  imported  in  bottles,  a  form  of  packing  already  handicapped  by  a 
higher  cost  and  greater  liability  to  breakage  and  loss),  on  the  basis  of  their  weight, 
including  that  of  their  immediate  coverings,  discriminates  in  favor  of  other  forms  of 
packing,  instead  of  encouraging  packing  in  bottles,  which  in  the  case  of  certain  prod- 
ucts, such  as  the  above  stated,  may  be  advisable  not  only  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
better  appearance  of  the  article,  but  also  for  hygienic  reasons,  the  packing  in  glass 
being  certainly  more  healthful  than  other  forms  of  packing. 

This  chamber  therefore  respectfully  recommends  that  if,  for  revenue  purposes,  it  is 
unavoidable  to  maintain  the  duty  on  bottles  used  as  containers  of  merchandise  already 
subject  to  duty,  at  least  it  be  removed  from  bottles  bearing  the  brand  or  name  of  the 
manufacturer  in  such  manner  that  such  brand  or  name  can  not  be  removed;  and 
further,  that  the  duty  on  bottle  containers,  from  the  present  high  rate  of  40  per  cent, 
be  reduced  to  a  more  reasonable  rate  of  specific  duty. 

Marble. — Developed  as  is  to-day  the  quarrying  of  marble  in  the  United  States,  espe- 
cially in  Vermont  and  Tennessee,  the  most  important  centers  of  this  industry,  it  is 
certain  that,  owing  to  the  constant  increase  in  the  demand  of  this  commodity  brought 
about  by  the  wonderful  development  of  American  architecture  (which,  in  line  with 
the  improving  artistic  education  of  pur  people,  continuously  finds  new  application  for 
the  employment  of  this  noble  building  material),  the  future  will  witness  an  even  more 
notable  increment  in  the  quarrying  ol  marble  in  this  country,  where  marble  deposits 
of  great  variety  and  of  greater  or  lesser  value  are  to  be  found  in  most  of  the  States,  so  vast 
is  the  wealth  of  the  United  States  in  this  mineral,  fairly  distributed  throughout  its 
area,  marble  being  quarried  from  Vermont  to  California  and  from  Alabama  to  Colorado. 

Marble  has  passed  long  ago  the  stage  when  its  use  might  have  been  considered  a 
luxury.  It  has  become  to-day  a  commodity,  or,  to  be  more  exact,  a  necessity,  not 
only  for  decorative  but  often  also  for  sanitary  and  economic  purposes,  fully  appre- 
ciated by  architects  and  builders  who  resort  to  its  use  freely,  with  the -result  that 
marble  is  to  be  considered  to-day  a  growing  necessity.  There  is  no  other  country 
where  marble  is  used  as  it  is  here. 

Such  being  the  case,  it  is  important  that,  ample  as  is  the  source  of  supply  for  the 
domestic  article,  which  for  obvious  reasons,  not  excluding  that  of  the  enormous  pro- 

78959°— VOL  1—13 31 


482  TABIFP 

PARAGRAPH  89— PUMICE  STONE. 

tection  accorded  to  it  in  the  past,  practically  controls  the  market  for  the  grades  of  this 
commodity  consumed  in  the  largest  quantity,  viz,  the  cheaper  varieties,  it  should  not 
be  restricted,  as  it  has  been  in  the  past,  by  not  only  superfluous  but  prejudicial  high 
rates  of  duty  on  those  finer  grades  of  marble  destined  to  special  purposes,  which  are  not 
yet  produced  in  this  country  and  have  therefore  to  be  imported  from  abroad. 

Italy  supplies  about  80  per  cent  of  all  the  marble  importations  in  this  country,  of 
which  about  70  per  cent  is  represented  by  marble  in  blocks,  subject  to  a  duty  of  65 
cents  per  cubic  foot. 

Marble  is  imported  from  Italy  because  of  its  special  qualities,  more  suited  to  certain 
purposes  than  the  domestic,  and  chiefly  for  statuary,  and  not  because  it  enters  into  com- 
petition with  American  marble,  for,  as  it  is  visible  "a  priori,"  the  great  difference  in 
the  primary  cost  of  production,  estimated  for  the  Vermont  marble  at  about  65  cents 
per  cubic  foot  at  the  quarry  and  even  less  for  marbles  from  other  States,  against  $1.50 
per  cubic  foot  for  the  Carrara  marble  f .  o.  b.  Leghorn,  this  would  be  absolutely  impos- 
sible, aside  from  any  duty  consideration. 

Why  a  protection  as  great  as  the  cost  of  production  on  the  unmanufactured  form  of 
marble  was  ever  allowed  is,  this  chamber  believes,  accountable  to  the  exaggerated 
importance  given  to  the  often-repeated  and  abused  argument  of  the  lower  cost  of  labor 
in  Italy  than  here,  which  is,  however,  not  as  low  as  reported  by  interested  competitors. 
From  $1  to  $1.60  is  paid  in  Italy  to  labor  working  in  the  quarries  for  six  hours  actual 
work,  equivalent  to  $1.33  to  $2.13  for  an  eight-hour  day.  The  labor  employed  in  the 
quarrying  districts  of  the  United  States  is  paid  on  the  average  from  $1.50  to  $2  per  day 
of  10  hours,  equivalent  to  from  $1.20  to  $1.60  per  day  of  8  hours,  or  about  the  same  as 
in  Italy. 

At  any  rate,  wages  paid  to  labor  are  only  one  of  the  factors  in  establishing  the  cost  of 
production,  the  disadvantage  of  the  higher  cost  of  labor,  if  any,  in  this  country,  being 
more  than  offset  by  the  wide  application  of  labor-saving  machinery  in  the  process  of 
extraction,  an  application  which,  through  peculiar  geographical  and  geological  condi- 
tions, is  not  possible  abroad,  where  the  work  of  quarrying  requires  a  complicated  sys- 
tem of  hauling  of  the  material  quarried,  which  increases  the  cost  of  production.  It  is 
safe  to  state  that  labor  in  Carrara  is,  proportionately  to  the  amount  of  material  quarried 
by  a  single  hand,  higher  than  in  the  marble-quarrying  districts  of  this  country.  Add 
to  this  the  difficulties  of  transportation,  which  has  to  oe  done  by  means  of  animals  to 
shipping  port  at  a  cost  of  58  cents  per  cubic  foot,  to  be  added  to  the  cost  of  the  marble 
at  the  quarry,  viz,  $0.92,  and  you  see  why  the  cost  price  of  the  Carrara  marble  at  the 
shipping  port  of  Leghorn  ia  more  than  twice  the  cost  of  the  marble  at  the  quarry  in 
this  country. 

Neither  is  the  statement  exact  that  the  American  marble  quarryman  does  not 
derive  any  protection  from  the  maritime  freight,  because  the  average  freight  from 
American  quarries  to  the  principal  distributing  points  in  the  United  States  will  average 
less  than  from  Italy.  The  freights  on  American  railroads  for  either  domestic  or  im- 
ported marble  are  equal,  and  comparisons  in  the  cost  of  freight  in  the  two  instances  of 
imported  and  domestic  marble  should  be  made  for  the  same  destination  and  for  an 
average  of  several  differently  located  places,  when  it  will  be  seen  that  the  advantage  is 
greater  on  the  side  of  the  American  product. 

Even  in  the  case  of  New  York,  which  can  b«  reached  by  the  imported  marble  at  a 
greater  advantage  than  other  destinations,  i.  e.,  at  a  freight  of  45  cents  per  cubic  foot 
plus  11  cents  per  cubic  foot,  marine  insurance  and  other  contingent  expenses,  or,  say, 
at  a  total  cost  of  55  cents,  the  advantage  is  notably  on  the  side  of  the  Vermont  marble, 
which  can  reach  the  same  destination  at  a  cost  of  25  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

It  should,  moreover,  be  stated  that  maritime  freights  on  this  commodity  have 
increased  lately  10  per  cent  per  cubic  foot  and  further  increases  seem  to  be  in  con- 
templation, while  freights  in  the  case  of  the  American  marble  have  not  changed. 

It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  American  marble,  in  comparison  to  the  imported, 
enjoys  already  a  natural  protection  equal  to  about  100  per  cent  by  reason  of  the  lower 
cost  of  production  and  freight,  taking  New  York  as  destination,  besides  the  duty  pro- 
tection of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot,  in  total  a  protection  of  nearly  200  per  cent. 

It  follows  that  while  the  cheapest  imported  marble,  selling  usually  at  $2.85  per 
cubic  foot,  leaves  a  profit  to  the  importer  of  only  10  per  cent,  the  Vermont  marble, 
selling  at  $2,  leaves  to  the  quarryman  a  profit  of  more  than  100  per  cent. 

Other  advantages  are  usually  associated  with  the  quarrying  of  American  marble 
in  comparison  to  the  imported,  and  these  are  the  manufacturing  of  the  marble  into 
slabs,  or  pieces  ready  for  operation,  carried  on  in  connection  with  the  quarrying, 
which,  by  the  protection  enjoyed  against  the  marble  imported  in  blocks,  makes  com- 
petition impossible  from  the  manufacturer  in  this  country  of  Carrara  marble,  who  has 
to  pay  duty  on  the  marble  in  block. 


SCHEDULE  B,  483 

PARAGRAPH  89— PT7MICE  STONE. 

The  present  high  protective  tariff  on  marble  in  blocks  does  not  benefit  either  Ameri- 
can labor,  the  employment  of  which  is  reduced  to  a  minimum  by  the  equipment  of 
the  quarries  with  modern  labor-saving  machinery  and  appliances,  nor  does  it  benefit 
the  manufacturers  of  marble  in  this  country,  of  whom  there  are  about  100  scat- 
tered in  the  States,  doing  annually  a  business  conservatively  estimated  at  from 
$15,000,000  to  $20,000,000,  and  who  can  not  compete  with  the  quarryman  manufac- 
turer. It  is  not  to  the  interest  of  revenue,  as  the  importation  of  foreign  marble  in  this 
country,  on  account  of  the  exorbitant  rate  of  duty  charged,  does  not  keep  pace  with 
the  demand  for  marble,  and  the  advantage  deriving  from  the  increased  demand  goes 
to  the  total  benefit  of  the  domestic  article. 

If  the  present  rate  on  block  marble  were  reduced  to  a  more  reasonable  figure,  say 
to  35  cents  per  cubic  foot,  as  this  chamber  respectfully  recommends,  Carrara  marble 
would  secure  some  share  of  the  increased  demand,  and  notwithstanding  the  reduced 
rate  the  revenue  would  get  a  greater  income  than  at  present,  because  of  increased 
importations,  while  the  increased  use  of  marble  of  better  quality  would  add  to  the 
value  of  the  buildings  in  which  it  is  used;  would  advantage  American  labor  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  marble  and  promote  artistic  improvement. 

On  marble  mosaics  a  duty  is  at  present  assessed  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  one- 
fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound.  It  is  the  opinion  of  this  chamber  that  this  duty  is  too 
high  and  should  be  reduced  by  eliminating  the  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound. 
Mosaic  cubes  are  not  made  in  this  country. 

There  is  therefore  no  need  of  protection.  The  duty  being  justifiable  only  from  the 
standpoint  of  raising  revenue,  this  chamber  believes  that  if  it  were  reduced  as  it 
respectfully  recommends,  to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  eliminating  the  one-fourth  of  a 
cent  per  pound,  it  would  help  to  increase  the  sales,  which  have  not  developed  on 
account  of  the  prohibitive  rates  imposed  by  the  tariff  act  of  1897,  preventing  the 
consumer  from  using  an  excellent  material  for  which  no  substitute,  equal  in  quality, 
can  be  found  in  this  country. 

At  the  last  tariff  revision  some  reduction  was  granted  in  the  duty  on  mosaics,  which, 
however,  has  not  proven  adequate  to  enable  this  commodity  to  attain  that  extensive 
use  which  it  certainly  would  at  a  more  reasonable  rate.  By  granting  the  reduction 
recommended  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  revenue  to  the  Government  would  be  higher 
than  it  has  been  for  the  last  few  years. 

Granito  or  terrazzo. — It  is  the  opinion  of  this  chamber  that  granito  should  be  placed 
on  the  free  list,  and  that  the  item  "granito"  should  be  specifically  stated  in  tariff 
nomenclature. 

About  five  or  six  years  ago  this  material,  which  has  been  the  cause  of  repeated  con- 
troversies between  importers  and  the  Government,  was,  in  consequence  of  the  various 
decisions  rendered,  at  first  admitted  in  exemption  of  duty  for  about  one  year,  and  then 
again  returned  to  the  dutiable  list  on  the  basis  first  of  10  per  cent  and  then  of  20  per 
cent  duty. 

Granito  is  produced,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  this  country,  at  Lee,  Mass.,  and  in  Georgia, 
but  the  domestic  product  is  sold  at  less  than  half  the  prices  of  the  imported  article. 

Granito  is  worth  in  Italy  about  14  francs  per  ton,  equal  to  $2.77;  it  costs  $2  per  ton  to 
convey  it  from  Carrara  to  Genoa,  and  from  $3.50  to  $4  per  ton  to  bring  it  to  New  York. 
A  further  10  per  cent  addition  should  be  made  for  waste,  which,  with  the  presentduty, 
at  the  rate  of  $0.66  per  ton,  brings  the  total  cost  of  the  article  in  New  York  at  $10.30, 
against  $4  per  ton,  selling  price  of  the  domestic  article  at  the  quarry. 

Even  with  the  granito  placed  on  the  free  list,  domestic  production  could  still  be 
sold  considerably  below  the  imported,  as  the  steamship  companies  have  lately  raised 
considerably  their  rates. 

As  the  present  duty  assessment  of  this  commodity  at  the  rate  of  20  per  cent  has 
helped  to  limit  the  importation  of  an  article  which  should  be  supplied  to  the  build- 
ing industry  of  this  country  at  the  smallest  possible  outlay,  this  chamber  recommends 
that  it  be  exempted  from  duty,  and  that  the  item  "granito"  be  made  one  of  the  cus- 
toms classification. 

Botticino,  which  is  a  limestone  and  not  a  marble,  as  witnessed  by  competent  tech- 
nical authority,  is  now  charged  at  the  rate  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  as  marble  in 
blocks. 

This  article,  also,  has  been  the  subject  of  tedious  controversies  between  the  im- 
porters and  the  Government,  the  former  having  protested  against  its  being  assessed 
at  65  cents,  because  it  is  not  marble  but  a  limestone,  and  because  it  is  worth  in  Italy 
only  from  80 'cents  to  $1  and  even  less  per  cubic  foot,  which  shows  conclusively  that 
it  is  an  article  of  much  lower  value  than  the  cheapest  grade  of  marble,  actually  costing 
at  the  shipping  port  $1.50  per  cubic  foot. 


484  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  89— PT7MICE  STONE- 

The  case  of  the  importers,  who  rightly  claim  that  it  should  be  assessed  duty  as 
stone — i.  e.,  at  the  rate  of  10  cents  per  cubic  foot — was  won  in  all  the  courts,  only  to  be 
defeated  by  the  Customs  Court  at  Washington  established  by  the  tariff  act  of  1909. 

From  the  facts  above  stated,  it  is  manifest  that  the  present  duty  charged  on  this 
material  is  untenable,  both  from  the  standpoint  of  the  technical  character  of  the 
material  in  question,  which  is  that  of  a  limestone  and  not  that  of  marble,  as  well  as 
from  the  standpoint  of  equity,  it  being  unfair  to  charge  on  a  material  of  much  less 
value  than  marble  the  same  duty  of  marble. 

Therefore,  for  reasons  of  justice,  equity,  and  in  the  interest  of  revenue,  which,  were 
this  material  allowed  to  come  in  at  a  lower  assessment,  would  benefit  by  the  increased 
importation,  this  chamber  respectfully  recommends  that  botticino  and  similar  lime- 
stones, bearing  the  denominations  of  Tavernelle,  Rosato,  Pietra  di  Trani,  etc.,  be 
specifically  classified,  under  the  paragraph  114,  as  "unmanufactured  limestone," 
and  assessed  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

[SEAL.]  LUIGI  SOLARI,  President. 

G.  R.  SOHROEDER,  Secretary. 

BRIEF  OF  CHARLES  B.  CHRYSTAI,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  IN  RE 

PTJMICE  STONE. 

NEW  YORK,  February  5,  19 IS. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Not  knowing  whether  the  duty  on  pumice  stone  has  had  consideration 
as  yet  or  not,  I  desire  to  call  your  committee's  attention  to  the  excessive  duty  on  this 
article,  covered  in  paragraph  89,  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  "Pumice  stone  manufac- 
tured wholly  or  partly,  per  pound,  three-eighths  cent. ' '  This  paragraph  covers  ground 
or  powdered  puanice  stone,  and  I  am  inclosing  copy  of  consular  invoice  recently 
received,  duly  sworn  to,  showing  the  value  of  the  pumice  stone  both  at  the  point  of 
production  and  at  New  York,  including  all  charges.  The  duty  on  this  shipment,  as 
on  all  shipments  of  pumice  stone,  was  three-eighths  cent  per  pound.  The  amount  of 
the  inclosed  consular  invoice  in  dollars  is  $615.84  mine  value,  including  cost  of  bags, 
and  I  paid  a  duty  of  $855,  making  the  percentage  of  duty  138.8  per  cent.  The  value 
of  this  shipment  at  New  York,  adding  freights,  insurance,  etc.,  duty  not  paid, 
$1,194.51,  making  percentage  of  duty  on  this  valuation  75.5  per  cent. 

From  the  fact  that  there  is  no  pumice  produced  in  the  United  States  excepting  a 
so-called  pumice,  used  in  cheap  soaps,  cleansers,  etc.,  this  duty  is  very  excessive. 
The  American  pumice  BO  called,  can  not  be  used  for  most  purposes  for  which  pumice 
is  required,  such  as  in  the  manufacture  of  silver-plated  and  solid  silver  ware,  for 
rubbing  down  varnished  surfaces,  and  for  numerous  purposes;  in  fact,  the  so-called 
American  pumice  is  useless  for  any  other  purpose,  as  has  been  repeatedly  demon- 
strated by  practical  tests. 

I  would  respectfully  suggest  a  duty  on  pumice  stone,  manufactured  wholly  or 
partly,  of  $2.50  per  ton,  and  in  my  opinion,  which  is  based  on  nearly  20  years'  expe- 
rience in  this  business,  this  duty  would  bring  a  greater  revenue  than  the  present  duty 
does  by  largely  facilitating  the  importation  of  pumice. 

Trusting  that  this  matter  will  have  consideration  at  the  proper  time,  and  feeling 
certain  that  your  investigations  will  show  that  the  duty  on  this  material  is  unduly 
large,  and  that  due  to  it  the  cost  of  pumice  to  the  consumer  is  much  greater  than  it 
should  be,  I  am, 

Yours,  very  respectfully,  CHAS.  B.  CHRYSTAL. 

[Inclosure.] 

CANNETO,  LIPARI,  January  2,  191S. 

Invoice  of  1,034  bags  powdered  pumice  stone  purchased  by  Charles  B.  Chrystal,  of  New 
York,  from  V.  &  A.  di  Angelo  D'Ambra,  of  Canneto,  Lipari,  to  be  shipped  per  steamship 
"  Moncenisio." 

POWDERED   PUMICE    STONE. 

FF  400  bags,  net  kilos  40,000,  at  48  Istg . ..'  96.00.00 

F  100  bags,  net  kilos  10,000,  at  46  Istg 23.  00.  00 

O  150  bags,  net  kilos  15,000,  at  46  Istg 34.10.00 

O  }  150  bags,  net  kilos  15.000,  at  48  Istp 36.  00.  00 


SCHEDULE  B.  485 

PARAGRAPH  89— PTJMICE  STONE. 

*  50  bags,  net  kilos  5,000,  at  50  Istg 12. 10.  00 

G  1 125  bags,  net  kilos  12,500,  at  50  Istg 3L  05.  00 

G  59  bags,  net  kilos  5,015,  at  46  Istg 1L  10.  08 

Consular  certificate 0. 10.  00 


Lstg 245.   5. 80 

Less  freight  at  New  York 84. 11.  50 

160. 14.  30 
E.  and  E.  E. 

SPECIFICATION. 

Lltg. 

Bags  cost 25.   9.  3 

Pumice  cost 101.   0. 0 

Shipping  expenses 5. 10. 0 

Municipal  duty 28. 15.  0 

Freight  cost 84. 1L  5 

245.   5.8 
Total  amount  of  export  duty  paid,  Istg.  28.15.0. 

STATE  OP  NEW  YORK, 

County  of  New  York,  as: 

Charles  B.  Chrystal,  being  duly  sworn,  says  that  he  is  an  importer  and  dealer  in 
pumice  stone  and  has  his  place  of  business  at  No.  11  Cliff  Street,  in  the  Borough  of 
Manhattan,  New  York  City,  N.  Y.;  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  correct  copy  of 
consular  invoice  filed  by  him  in  the  United  States  customhouse  in  New  York  City; 
that  the  prices  noted  therein  are  the  present  market  prices  and  have  been  the  approx- 
imate market  prices  for  the  past  five  years. 

CHAS.  B.  CHRYSTAL. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  February  5,  1913. 
[SEAL.]  ANDREW  WOELFEL, 

Notary  Public,  Richmond  County. 

Certificate  filed  in  New  York  County,  No.  56,  New  York  County  register's  office, 
No.  4161. 

BRIEF  OF  F.   W.   THURSTON  CO.,   CHICAGO,   ILL. 

Pumice  Stone  and  Imitation  Pumice  Brick. 

CHICAGO,  January  4,  191S. 
Mr.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Referring  to  the  tariff  on  pumice  stone,  paragraph  89,  that  part  which 
refers  to  "Manufacture  of  pumice  stone  or  of  which  pumice  stone  is  the  component 
article  of  chief  value  not  especially  provided  for  in  this  section,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

How  applied :  We  are  interested  in  the  importation  of  a  German  imitation  pumice 
brick,  which  is  not  made  from  pumice;  in  fact,  is  entirely  made  from  clayey  and  flinty 
substances,  and  which  the  customs  appraisers  have  been  assessing  at  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  using  the  above  paragraph  for  their  authority. 

Changes  desired :  The  commodity  to  become  dutiable  in  accordance  with  paragraph 
90,  which  reads  as  follows:  "Clays  or  earths  wrought  or  manufactured  not  especially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  $2  per  ton." 

In  order  that  this  pumice  brick  receives  a  proper  classification  we  request  that  you 
recommend  a  change  in  the  paragraph  to  read  as  follows:  "Clays  or  earths,  wrought  or 
manufactured,  including  rubbing,  scouring,  or  polishing  bricks  or  powders."  In  this 
way  there  would  be  no  question  about  this  brick  being  properly  classified. 

Whatever  duty  your  committee  finally  determine  shall  apply  to  the  importation 
listed  as  "Clays  and  earth  wrought  and  manufactured,"  we  request  you  also  apply  to 
this  imitation  pumice  brick. 

Increased  importation:  A  reduction  in  the  tariff  should  increase  the  importation  of 
this  article,  as  it  will  decrease  the  cost,  as  under  the  present  ruling  the  rate  of  duty  is 
excessive,  as  the  uses  to  which  this  brick  is  put  are  simply  for  the  purposes  of  scouring 
and  rubbing. 


486  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASFHALTTTM. 

Is  not  manufactured  here.  The  component  parts  of  this  brick  have  been  found  by 
analysis  to  consist  of  silica  and  other  mineral  substances,  but  does  not  contain  any 
pumice.  The  crude  material  entering  into  manufacture,  we  understand,  is  native 
to  the  country  in  which  it  is  produced,  and  none  of  the  exact  character  has  been 
discovered  here  to  profitably  make  the  brick  in  this  country. 

American  labor:  The  raw  material  could  not  be  imported  into  this  country  and  then 
manufactured  into  a  similar  article  with  the  protection  of  the  present  duty  or  even  a 
higher  one  and  compete  with  the  foreign-made  brick,  as  it  is  only  produced  by  a  few 
firms  who  have  specialized  on  this  commodity  by  many  years  of  manufacture.  It 
does  not  come  in  competition  with  American  labor;  in  fact,  it  will  benefit  American 
labor  to  this  extent,  that  we  understand  in  some  of  the  shops  where  this  material  is 
used  the  laborer  buys  his  own  bricks  under  contract  or  piece  system.  Therefore  a 
reduction  will  operate  as  a  benefit  and  not  a  tax  to  the  American  laborer. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

F.  W.  THXTRSTON,  President. 
PARAGRAPH  90. 

Clays  or  earths,  tmwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided  for 
In  this  section,  one  dollar  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  two  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay  or  kaolin,  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  ton;  limestone  rock  asphalt,  fifty  cents  per  ton; 
asphaltum  and  bitumen,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  crude,  if 
not  dried,  or  otherwise  advanced  in  any  manner,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents 
per  ton;  if  dried  or  otherwise  advanced  in  any  manner,  three  dollars  per  ton; 
bauxite,  or  bauxite,  crude,  not  refined  or  otherwise  advanced  in  condition 
from  its  natural  state,  one  dollar  per  ton;  fuller's  earth,  unwrought  and  un- 
manufactured, one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured, 
three  dollars  per  ton;  fluorspar,  three  dollars  per  ton. 

For  clays  and  earths,  etc.,  see  R.  J.  Waddell  &  Co.,  page  478;  for  asphaltum,  see 
Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  480;  for  fluorspar,  see  Worth  Bros.  Co.,  par.  151, 
Schedule  C;  for  bauxite,  see  Merrimac  Chemical  Co.,  page  96. 

ASPHALTUM. 

STATEMENT    OF    ARTHUR    W.    SEWALL    ON   BEHALF    OF    THE 
BARBER  ASPHALT  PAVING  CO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Arthur  W.  Sewall. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  If  you  please,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the 
committee,  there  are  three  points  to  be  considered  in  connection  with 
the  item  of  tariff  on  asphaltum  and  bitumen  to  which  I  would  like  to 
call  your  attention.  They  are: 

First.  Why  was  asphaltum  and  bitumen,  crude  and  refined,  placed 
on  the  dutiable  list  in  the  first  instance;  and  was  this  step  wise  or 
justifiable? 

Second.  Have  conditions  changed  since  the  tariff  on  asphaltum  was 
created  ? 

Third.  Should  asphaltum  and  bitumen  be  removed  from  the  duti- 
able to  the  free  list  ? 

As  to  the  first  question,  the  asphalt  tariff  is  unique  in  that  it  was 
created  to  protect  not  an  infant  but  an  unborn  industry. 

Contrary  to  prevailing  belief  and  assertion,  the  Dingley  duties  were 
not  established  for  the  protection  of  asphalt  manufactured  from 
petroleum,  but  for  the  benefit  of  California  miners  of  an  asphaltic 
sandstone,  which  through  extraction  of  the  bitumen  it  contained, 
by  mechanical  processes,  was  expected  to  have  great  commercial  possi- 
bilities. But  the  scheme  commercially  was  a  failure. 

There  was  no  oil  asphalt  industry  worth  talking  about  at  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  bill  in  1897.  In  that  year,  according 


SCHEDULE  B.  487 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

to  the  1900  edition  of  "The  Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States," 
page  655,  the  total  production  of  hard  asphalt  of  all  kinds  was  3,940 
tons,  and  this  production  decreased  to  1,876  tons  in  1898,  the  year 
after  the  bill  was  passed. 

Since  1900,  however,  first  in  a  small  way  and  later  hi  a  rapidly 
increasing  degree,  the  oil  asphalt  producers  had  benefited  by  the 
tariff  that  was  imposed  to  protect  an  industry  that  commercially 
never  came  into  being,  and  they  asserted,  when  the  Payne- Aldrich  tar- 
iff bill  was  being  prepared,  that  they  would  be  ruined  unless  the  tariff 
was  not  only  retained  but  materially  increased.  One  applicant  even 
asked  that  the  duty  be  increased  to  $10  per  ton. 

There  was  not  and  is  not  now  any  domestic  product  which  needs 
to  be  protected  by  a  tariff,  even  the  asphalt  made  from  petroleum. 
As  already  shown,  this  product  was  insignificant  at  the  time  of  the 
creation  of  the  present  duties,  and  the  price  charged  for  California 
asphalt  up  to  1901  was  $35  a  ton,  delivered  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard 
(as  shown  by  Exhibit  A,  a  contract  between  the  Alcatraz  Co.  and 
the  Southern  Asphalt  Paving  Co.,  filed  with  our  brief).  It  was 
not  until  three  or  four  years  after  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  Act  that 
the  production  of  crude  petroleum  in  California  unexpectedly  and 
rapidly  reached  enormous  proportions  with  the  opening  up  of  the  Kern 
River  oil  fields.  In  the  distillation  of  part  of  this  largely  increased 
supply  of  oil — the  vast  bulk  of  which  was  used  and  continues  to  be 
used  for  fuel  purposes  by  railroads,  steamships,  and  otherwise — there 
was  made  a  large  and  increasing  volume  of  by-product  asphaltum, 
followed  by  a  fall  of  prices,  until  it  is  now  sold  in  the  New  York 
market  at  as  low  as  $16.50  a  ton  hi  cargo  lots. 

These  developments,  together  with  a  decrease  hi  freight  rates  to 
$12  per  ton  all  rail,  and  $11  by  rail  and  Gulf,  and  $6  by  Cape  Horn, 
have  made  it  possible  for  California  asphalt  to  be  sold  in  the  East  at 
prices  as  last  named,  which  are  much  below  those  that  must  be 
charged  for  the  imported  asphalts,  because  the  latter  are  costly  to 
mine,  transport,  and  refine,  represent  a  very  large  capital  investment, 
and  pay  the  tariff  duties  originated  in  the  Dingley  Act. 

I  might  state  for  the  information  of  the  committee  that  our  plant 
investment  in  Trinidad  and  Venezuela  and  near  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J., 
is  over  $7,000,000. 

The  McKinley  and  Wilson  tariffs  ignored  asphalt,  and  when,  with 
the  inspiration  already  mentioned,  the  asphalt  duties  which  have 
ever  since  been  maintained  were  proposed  in  the  law  of  1897,  Senator 
Chilton,  of  Texas,  made  this  protest,  which  is  as  sound  to-day  as  it 
was  15  years  ago,  when  the  only  California  asphalt  on  the  market  was 
Alcatraz,  the  product  covered  in  the  original  selling  contract  re- 
ferred to  as  our  Exhibit  A. 

Senator  Chiltori  said: 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  case  where  the  American  industry  is  clearly  able  to 
stand  alone.  It  needs  no  protection.  This  is  an  unnecessary  charge  upon  the  tax- 
payers of  a  large  section  of  the  country  and  can  do  no  possible  good.  The  product  is 
one  that  can  not  be  locally  developed  by  a  protective  duty,  and  being  so  largely 
used  in  the  work  of  municipalities,  it  is  not  an  appropriate  subject  for  revenue  duty. 

It  is  important  to  consider  that  the  residual  or  by-product  asphal- 
tum forms  an  insignificant  part  of  the  petroleum  industry  as  a  whole. 
Of  the  total  California  crude-oil  production  in  1911,  81,134,391  bar- 


488  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTUM. 

rels,  not  more  than  3  per  cent  (see  detailed  memorandum  illustrative 
of  this  field  with  the  committee)  was  necessary  in  the  manufacture  of 
the  amount  of  California  asphalt  produced  in  that  year.  This  product, 
therefore,  can  not  be  an  important  factor  affecting  the  welfare  of 
California  oil  producers,  so  far  as  the  tariff  is  concerned. 

Their  immense  oil-refining  capacity,  primarily  provided  for  the  pro- 
duction of  distillates,  results  in  an  amount  of  oy-product  or  residual 
asphalt  that  has  always  been  far  in  excess  of  market  demands.  The 
existence  of  this  opportunity — in  the  course  of  obtaining  distillates — 
for  producing  a  vast  quantity  of  residual  asphalt  is  the  inspiration  of 
the  demand  for  tariff  protection.  This  demand  persists  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  its  sponsors  are  asking  for  protection  for  a  by-product 
created  with  the  full  foreknowledge  that  the  market  could  not  normally 
absorb  it.  The  most  extreme  protectionist  would  hardly  claim  that 
it  is  incumbent  upon  Congress  to  rescue  deliberate  overprotection 
from  its  natural  economic  fate — certainly  not  when  the  commodity 
is  not  a  principal  product,  but  one  that  occurs  as  an  incident  in  an 
industry  that  is  made  sufficiently  profitable  by  its  main  products. 

One  hundred  and  forty  thousand  dollars  was  all  that  should  have 
been  paid  in  1911  for  labor  employed  in  producing  that  year's  output 
of  139,000  tons  of  asphalt  from  California  oil,  and  this  is  the  measure 
of  the  extent  to  which  American  labor  is  interested  in  this  matter. 

I  say,  "should  have  been  paid."  I  say  that  advisedly.  For  more 
than  10  years  the  Barber  Asphalt  Paving  Co.  has  owned  and  operated 
in  Los  Angeles  a  refinery  for  the  making  of  asphaltum  out  of  crude 
oil.  Prior  to  the  rapid  development  of  the  petroleum  industry  in 
California  t*his  company  had  shipped  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  as  far 
west  as  Portland,  Oreg.,  but  it  was  not  commercially  possible  to  do 
this  after  the  development  of  petroleum  refining  in  California  with 
its  resultant  by-product  of  asphaltum.  The  refinery  referred  to  was 
acquired  to  enable  the  company  to  compete  in  point  of  price  in  ob- 
taining asphalt  street-paving  contracts  on  the  Pacific  coast.  That 
plant  nas  a  capacity  of,  and  does  actually  produce,  1,400  tons  of 
asphaltum  per  month.  The  pay  roll,  details  of  which  will  be  filed 
with  the  committee,  amounts  to  SI, 397  per  month.  Thus  you  will 
see  that  the  labor  cost  per  ton  of  asphaltum  produced  is  $1,  if  the 
entire  labor  charge  is  placed  against  the  asphaltum  product,  and  no 
part  of  it  against  the  gasoline,  engine,  and  fuel  distillates,  which  are 
driven  off  in  the  refining  process  and  which  constitutes  three-fourths 
of  the  volume  of  the  petroleum  put  through  the  stills.  Certainly  it 
would  be  more  accurate  to  make  a  pro  rata  portion  of  the  labor 
charge  against  the  distillates,  they  being  in  bulk  and  value  the  prin- 
cipal products. 

The  plant,  at  1,400  tons  per  month,  has  a  capacity  of  16,800  tons 
per  annum.  Xine  such  plants,  running  full  time,  could  make  a  pro- 
duction of  asphalt  equal  to  the  output  of  139,000  tons  produced  in 
1911,  as  shown  in  "Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States."  But 
there  are  many  more  than  nine  such  plants  in  California,  with  a 
great  overcapacity  of  manufacturing  ability,  and  if  the  overhead 
charges  of  tliis  excess  capacity  were  added  it  would  increase  the  cost 
for  labor  above  Si  per  ton. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  there  seems  to  have  been  and  to  be  now  no 
justification  for  the  imposition  of  the  tariff  on  asphalt,  a  tariff  that 


SCHEDULE  B.  489 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

has  directly  and  indirectly  taxed  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few, 
and  even  these  few  do  not  appear  to  need  the  protection  uninten- 
tionally given  them. 

Secondlv,  have  conditions  changed  since  these  products  were  placed 
on  the  dutiable  list  ? 

Not  only  have  conditions  changed,  as  already  described,  since  the 
enactment  of  the  Dingley  law,  but  a  further  and  more  radical  change 
has  come  about  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  countervailing 
duty  on  petroleum  at  the  tune  of  the  passage  of  the  Payne- Aldrich 
law. 

Since  petroleum  was  by  it  admitted  free,  there  have  come  to  our 
markets  large  quantities  of  Mexican  asphaltic  oil,  which  is  similar  to 
the  California  oil,  and  from  which  asphalt  is  being  made  by  the  great 
eastern  refining  companies  at  far  below  the  delivered  prices  of  Cali- 
fornia oil  asphalt,  no  more,  in  fact,  than  the  rail  freight  charges  on  the 
latter  product. 

This  is  the  real  competition  that  the  California  producers  have  to 
meet;  and  with  the  appearance  of  the  Mexican  oil,  the  last  vestige  of 
a  reason  for  a  tariff  on  lake  asphalt  has  disappeared. 

Prior  to  the  removal  of  the  countervailing  duty  the  very  high 
import  rates  on  petroleum  and  petroleum  products  in  Mexico  oper- 
ated automatically,  of  course,  and  they  were  very  high — in  fact, 
such  as  would  have  been  prohibitive  on  Mexican  petroleum  if  then 
shipped  to  the  United  States. 

The  imported  asphaltum  from  Trinidad  and  Venezuela  or  else- 
where can  not  possibly  compete  in  price  with  the  residual  asphalts 
made  from  Mexican  and  California  petroleum;  but  the  lake  asphalts 
have  qualities  of  their  own  that  make  them  supremely  valuable,  and 
of  which  those  who  pay  for  streets  and  roads  should  be  permitted  to 
take  advantage  without  the  additional  cost  imposed  by  the  tariff. 

The  reasons  that  led  to  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  petroleum  are 
equally  applicable  to  asphalts.  The  Mexican  oil,  already  mentioned, 
like  California  oil,  is  raw  material,  f«rom  which  residual  asphalt  is 
made.  In  a  similar  sense  crude  lake  bitumen  is  the  raw  material 
from  which  paving  and  road  asphalt  is  made,  and  with  petroleum 
it  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list.  The  reasons  for  placing  refined, 
as  well  as  crude,  asphalt  on  the  free  list  are  mainly  that  this  would 
not  menace  any  considerable  interest  of  American  labor,  while  it 
would  enable  producers,  American  producers,  to  ship  the  refined 
product  to  points  nearest  the  consuming  markets  and  thus  save  the 
cost  of  freight  from  main  refineries  to  cities  in  certain  sections,  nota- 
bly hi  the  Southern  States,  remote  from  them. 

For  the  information  of  the  committee  I  would  state  (by  way  of 
parenthesis)  that,  having  such  an  immense  investment  of  capital  in 
its  plant  at  New  Jersey,  as  heretofore  referred  to,  the  Barber  Asphalt 
Paving  Co.  could  not  undertake  to  build  and  operate  additional 
refining  plants  at  other  points  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  or  on  the 
Gulf  coast.  From  our  small  refinery  at  Trinidad  there  has  been 
imported  in  1912,  up  to  the  end  of  November,  16,260  tons  of  refined 
asphaltum,  of  which  about  one-half  is  landed  at  Mobile  and  the  other 
half  at  New  Orleans. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Are  there  any  by-products  manufactured  from  the 
Trinidad  asphalt? 


490  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTUM. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  None  whatever. 

In  shipping  refined  lake  asphaltum  from  Trinidad  to  the  Gulf  ports 
for  consumption  in  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  Florida  we 
have  to  pay  the  higher  import  rate  wnich  applies  to  refined  asphalt; 
but,  per  contra,  this  higher  tariff  on  the  refined  is  less  in  amount  than 
railroad  freight  rates  on  the  same  article  when  shipped  from  our  works 
in  New  Jersey  to  the  Southern  States  mentioned.  From  the  stand- 
point of  fairness  to  the  consumers  in  those  sections,  I  think  it  would 
be  most  just  and  proper  if  the  duty  on  imported  refined  asphalt  were 
removed. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  American  labor  has  but  a  very  small  interest 
in  this  matter,  either  as  to  the  refining  of  United  States  oils  or  im- 
ported native  asphalt. 

The  amount  of  labor  used  in  refining  crude  lake  asphalt  is  nearly 
three  times  as  great  as  in  manufacturing  asphaltum  by  distillation 
from  crude  oil,  because  the  crude  asphaltum  when  placed  in  the  hold 
of  a  ship  amalgamates  into  a  mass  and  must  be  dug  out  by  mattocks 
at  destination.  It  has  then  to  be  hoisted  from  the  ship,  moved  on 
cars,  and  placed  in  bins,  again  dug  from  the  bins  and  refined;  so  that 
American  labor  is  more  interested  in  this  than  in  the  other  case. 

The  company  that  I  represent  is  not  asking  for  a  removal  of  the 
duty  on  refined  asphalt  with  the  expectation,  in  case  the  tariff  is 
removed,  of  refining  a  larger  percentage  of  its  imported  asphaltum 
at  its  place  of  origin.  It  has,  as  shown,  a  very  great  investment  in  a 
refining  plant  in  this  country  and  will  continue  to  operate  it  always 
to  its  fullest  capacity.  The  direct  benefit  of  the  removal  of  the  tariff 
would  inure  to  the  consumer  in  the  form  of  lower  prices — not  to  the 
importers  of  asphalt — and  these  lower  prices  would  not  be  obtained 
at  the  expense  of  American  labor. 

Finally,  should  asphaltum  and  bitumen,  crude  and  refined,  be 
removed  from  the  dutiable  list  to  the  free  list  ? 

Without  doubt  there  will  be  strenuous  opposition  to  the  removal 
of  the  duty  from  manufacturers  of  asphaltum  from  crude  oil  in 
California  and  those  who  manufacture  asphalt  therefrom.  There  will 
be  opposition  from  the  great  refining  companies  in  the  East,  who 
are  making  asphaltum  out  of  the  Mexican  commodity  from  oil,  but, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  assure  you  you  will  never  receive  any  protest  from 
any  disinterested  taxpayer  anywhere  in  the  United  States  if  asphal- 
tum is  put  on  the  free  list.  Without  doubt,  the  reasons  why  the 
tariff  on  asphalt  should  be  removed  are: 

First.  Because  the  present  duties  of  $3  per  ton  on  refined  asphalt 
and  $1.50  per  ton  on  crude  are  a  tax  on  good  roads  and  streets,  and 
in  this  connection  I  have  a  paper  which  will  be  filed  with  our  brief, 
which  contains  information  from  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Office  of  Public  Roads,  in  which  is  given  the  figures  that 
have  been  expended  in  the  various  States  during  the  current  year 
under  State  appropriations  and  other  appropriations  which  have 

fone  hand  in  hand  with  and  supplemental  to  the  State  appropriations. 
t  states,  in  summing  up,  that  in  addition  to  the  amounts  already 
given,  a  summary  of  the  statistics  received  from  30  States  shows  that 
$72,458,716  has  been  expended  by  the  counties  and  other  municipal 
units  for  highway  construction  during  the  last  fiscal  year.  I  venture 
to  say  that  never  in  the  history  of  our  country  has  a  nonpolitical 


SCHEDULE  B.  491 

PABAGBAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

question  swept  amongst  pur  people  with  such  tremendous  force  and 
absorbed  so  much  of  their  attention  as  the  present  problem  of  good 
roads  and  how  to  get  them.  Of  course  we  are  aware  that  an  effort 
is  being  made  to  obtain  Federal  aid,  enlist  Federal  interest,  and  to 
what  extent  that  may  materialize  in  results  of  that  sort,  of  course  I 
do  not  know. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  We  would  advise  you  to  be  hopeful. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Well,  I  am  hopeful,  and  I  desire  to  express  the 
thought  that  with  that  possibility  latent,  potential,  the  continuation 
of  the  tariff  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Nation  must,  hi  con- 
tributing to  the  cost  of  good  roads,  pay  out  to  a  certain  extent  from 
one  pocket  the  funds  that  it  has  collected  into  another. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Of  course,  if  we  are  going  to  have  Federal  aid 
in  road  building,  we  won't  be  able  to  reduce  the  tariff.  I  want  to 
ask  you  what  assurance  we  would  have  that  the  consumer  would  get 
the  benefit  of  putting  asphalt  on  the  free  list. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  He  would  get  the  full  reduction  in  the  tariff.  We 
would  make  a  corresponding  reduction  in  our  selling  price  immedi- 
ately, as  soon  as  the  removal  of  the  duty  goes  into  effect. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  cheaper  would  that  make  it,  suppos- 
ing that  we  did  put  asphalt  on  the  free  list  to  go  into  effect  the  1st  of 
July?  What  would  be  the  quotation  of  your  prices? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  If  the  tariff  is  taken  off,  a  proportionate  reduction 
in  the  selling  price  of  Trinidad  Lake  refined  asphalt  at  our  works  at 
Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  would  operate  to  lower  the  selling  price  by 
SI. 77,  or  from  $20,  the  present  price,  to  $18.23,  on  asphalt  refined  at 
that  point. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  it  would  not  lower  it  $3  on  the  refined  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  No.  Because  the  bulk  of  our  asphalt  is  imported  in 
the  crude  state,  and  therefore  does  not  pay  the  $3  rate  assessed  on 
asphalt  when  imported  in  the  refined  state. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  question  the  chairman  asked  you  was,  whether,  if 
the  duty  of  $3  on  refined  asphalt  was  taken  off,  the  consumer  would 
get  the  benefit  of  it  the  1st  of  July. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  He  would  get  the  benefit  of  the  duty  we  are  paying 
at  the  present  time,  if  you  please,  namely,  $1.77  per  ton  on  such 
asphalt  as  we  produce  at  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  from  crude;  and 
$2.52  per  ton  on  such  asphalt  as  we  import  in  its  refined  state 
through  Gulf  ports. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  duty  is  levied  on  a  long  ton  of 
2,240  pounds  of  asphalt,  but  the  weight  of  packages  is  deducted  there- 
from. All  refined  asphalt  is  sold  in  the  United  States,  however,  in 
short  tons,  consisting  of  about  1,880  pounds  of  asphalt  and  about  120 
pounds  of  barrels,  so  that  for  every  unit  upon  which  we  pay  duty 
there  are  not  only  2,240  pounds  of  asphalt,  but  143  pounds  of  barrels 
additional,  a  total  of  2,383  pounds  of  asphalt  and  barrels,  or  about 
1.19  commercial  short  tons  for  each  $3  paid  in  duty;  in  other  words, 
that  duty  per  long  ton  is  equivalent  to  $2.52  per  commercial  short 
ton.  This  accounts  for  the  difference  of  48  cents  between  the  $3  per 
long  ton  packages  weighed  out  and  the  $2.52  per  commercial  short 
ton  packages  weighed  in.  By  this  latter  amount  we  agree  to  reduce 
our  selling  price  for  asphalt  imported  from  Trinidad  in  its  refined 
state.  The  import  rate  is  assessed  on  the  long  ton,  disregarding  the 


492  tARIFP 

PABAQBAPH  90— ASPHAI/TOM. 

weight  of  the  containing  packages,  while  all  sales  in  the  United  States 
are  on  the  short  ton,  with  packages  included  in  the  weight  sold,  and 
we  therefore  are  not  paying  $3  on  the  short  ton. 

Mr.  HELL.  But  the  duty  of  $3  per  ton  is  intended  to  fully  compen- 
sate for  the  shrinkage  and  loss  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  so  that  it 
would  seem  to  me  that  the  duty  of  $1.50  on  the  crude  would  show  no 
shrinkage  in  the  commodity  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  I  believe  the  facts  and  figures  that  I  have  been  offer- 
ing make  it  clear  that  the  import  rates  on  the  refined  and  crude  are 
not  proportionate,  the  duty  on  refined  being  proportionately  higher 
than  the  duty  on  crude.  From  them  it  would  appear  that  the  rate 
of  $3  per  ton  on  the  refined  was  put  on  under  a  supposition  that  it 
would  require  2  tons  of  crude  to  manufacture  1  ton  of  refined,  and 
that  the  crude  asphalt  was  therefore  only  half  as  valuable  as  the 
refined  for  tariff  purposes,  but  such  is  not  the  case. 

Each  commercial  ton  of  refined  asphalt,  manufactured  from  im- 
ported crude,  represents  only  1.18  tons  of  crude,  and  not  2  tons.  Each 
commercial  ton,  as  already  stated,  contains  1,880  pounds  of  asphalt 
and  120  pounds  of  barrels,  and  to  make  the  1,880  pounds  of  refined 
asphalt  so  produced  there  are  required  2,648  pounds  of  crude  asphalt, 
the  duty  j>aid  on  which  is  $1.77. 

When  imported  as  refined,  however,  the  long  ton  with  its  packages 
becomes  converted  for  commercial  purposes  into  2,240  pounds  of 
asphalt  and  143  pounds  of  packages,  or  about  1.19  commercial  short 
tons,  upon  which  $3  duty  is  paid,  or  $2.52  per  commercial  short  ton. 
The  crude  that  was  used  to  make  this  refined  asphalt  was  about  3,155 
pounds  and  were  the  rates  of  duty  proportionate,  the  duty  coUected 
would  be  equivalent  to  that  on  3,155  pounds  of  crude  asphalt  at 
$1.50  per  2,240  pounds,  or  about  $2.10  instead  of  $3. 

Summarizing  the  foregoing,  the  customhouse  receives  payment  on 
on  the  importation  of  crude  asphalt  at  our  works  at  a  rate  equivalent 
to  $1.77  per  short  ton  of  United  States  commercial  output  while, 
when  the  refined  article  is  imported  at  Gulf  ports,  the  customhouse 
receives  payment  at  a  rate  equivalent  to  $2.52  per  short  ton  of 
United  States  commercial  output,  which  in  both  cases  is  2,000 
pounds,  that  is,  1,880  pounds  of  asphalt  and  120  pounds  of  packages 

Mr.  HILL.  Now « 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Xow. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  you  do  not  pay  $3  on  that  which  is  imported  as 
crude  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Xo,  we  pay  $3  only  when  importing  refined,  and  that 
payment  of  S3  per  long  ton  is  equivalent  only  to  $2.52  when  applied 
to  the  unit  in  which  asphalt  is  sold  in  the  United  States,  i.  e.,  2,000 
pounds,  packages  weighed  in. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  Mr.  Sewall,  have  you  not  competition  now  which 
you  did  not  have  before  in  your  business  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Certainly;  but  not  immediately,  as  the  result  of  the 
putting  on  of  the  duty. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  more  competition,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  We  have,  since  some  years  after  the  passage  of  the 
DingJey  tariff,  though,  not  at  the  time  the  duty  was  created. 


SCHEDULE  B.  493 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPTTAT.TTJM. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  they  not  developed  more  independent  com- 
panies, and  do  the  cities  not  get  more  of  a  chance  hi  competition,  in 
making  their  contracts  for  pavements  since  that  duty  was  put  on? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  If  you  please,  Mr.  Payne,  as  heretofore  stated,  the 
duty  was  created  to  support  an  undertaking  for  the  mining  of  bitu- 
minous sandstone  in  California.  The  rock  was  to  be  put  through  a 
crushing  mill  and  the  ground  product  washed  in  a  closed  tank  filled 
with  naphtha,  which  dissolved  the  particles  of  bitumen  contained  in 
the  sand.  The  solvent,  with  its  load  of  bitumen,  flowed  20  miles 
through  a  4-inch  pipe  to  the  seacoast  and  was  there  redistilled,  the 
naphtha  (which  was  the  solvent)  being  then  pumped  back  to  the 
quarry  on  the  mountain.  The  redistillation  resulted  in  a  product  of 
refined  asphaltum.  The  operation  was  expected  to  cost  $7  per  ton 
for  the  asphaltum  produced,  but  it  actually  cost  $16  and  proved  a 
commercial  failure.  That  was  the  condition  at  the  time  the  tariff 
was  put  on  and  not  until  three  years  thereafter  did  the  oil  fields  of 
California  commence  to  yield  their  large  output.  There  was  then 
a  considerable  development,  and  later  on  a  still  more  extensive  output 
of  California  asphalt  made  from  oil.  Since  this  production  was 
started  on  a  wholesale  scale  its  introduction  into  the  market  has 
affected  our  selling  prices,  but  it  has  not  been  the  only  influence 
which  has  lowered  prices.  For  15  years  paving-brick  factories  have 
come  into  operation  from  Pine  Grove,  Pa.,  to  Coffeyville,  Kans., 
and  from  Galesburg,  111.,  to  Birmingham,  Ala.,  and  at  very  many 
intermediate  cities.  The  paving-brick  manufacturers  have  sought 
popularity  with  the  public,  and  the  struggle  which  has  resulted 
between  them  and  the  makers  of  asphalt  pavement  has  brought 
about  the  lowering  of  the  cost  of  both  types  and  of  the  commodities 
that  enter  hi  to  the  laying  thereof.  It  would  seem  not  to  be  accurate 
or  fair  to  credit  the  California  oil  asphalt  industry  with  being  the 
only  factor  that  has  caused  a  downward  trend  of  prices.  It  had  an 
effect,  undoubtedly. 

Mr.  HELL.  Is  the  Mexican  product  brought  in  as  refined  or  crude  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  It  is  brought  in  in  the  form  of  crude  petroleum  since 
the  removal  of  the  countervailing  duty. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFOKD.  Your  contention  is  that  one  form  of  asphalt 
comes  in  free  and  another  form  that  is  not  free  has  to  bear  the  duty  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Precisely. 

It  is  a  settled  fact  that  some  form  of  bituminous  binder  is  necessary 
to  hold  roads  together.  With  asphalt  on  the  free  list  the  materials 
best  adapted  for  this  purpose  could  be  used  at  decreased  expense. 
Good  pavements  and  roads  are  costly  enough  without  the  addition  of 
a  tariff  tax. 

Second.  Because  the  existing  tariff  would  be  saved  by  the  com- 
munities now  paying  it  hi  the  form  of  increased  costs  and  put  into 
much-needed  additional  construction. 

That  imported  asphalts  would  be  reduced  in  price  if  the  tariff  were 
removed  is  certain,  since  these  products  are  now  necessarily  higher  in 
price,  owing  to  their  greater  cost,  than  asphalt  made  from  oils,  and  it 
would  be  to  the  advantage  of  all  the  importers  to  reduce  their  price 
by  at  least  the  amount  of  the  tariff  tax. 


494  TARIFF    HBAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHAI/TTTM. 

Third.  Because  no  lake  asphalt  is  found  in  the  United  States  and 
no  duties  are  necessary  to  protect  this  product  or  the  labor  engaged 
in  its  production. 

No  industry  or  product  so  located  that  it  must  pay  heavy  freight 
rates  to  a  part  of  the  market  should  ask  Congress  to  maintain  a  tax 
on  the  whole  country  in  order  to  overcome  the  disadvantages  of  the 
product's  location.  Especially  is  this  true  of  a  product  like  California 
oil  asphalt,  which  has  demonstrated  that  it  can  overcome  the  draw- 
back of  a  high  transportation  charge  even  if  no  tariff  existed. 

Fourth.  Because  in  the  face  of  an  increase  in  asphalt  imports  from 
115,000  tons  in  1906  to  168,000  tons  in  1911,  or  53,000  tons,  the  pro- 
duction of  California  oil  asphalt  in  the  same  period  increased  77,000 
tons. 

This  proves  that  the  California  industry  can  prosper  hi  spite  of  the 
increasing  use  of  imported  asphalt.  All  that  the  Dingley  duties  have 
done  is  to  make  the  imported  product  cost  more  and  enabled  the 
California  producers  to  charge  more  than  they  might  have  charged 
for  all  asphalt  had  no 'duties  been  imposed. 

In  support  of  these  statements,  I  respectfully  call  your  attention 
to  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the  Union  Oil  Co.  of  California,  Exhibit  B, 
prior  to  1912,  the  largest  producer  of  asphalt  in  California,  which 
says: 

The  production  of  California  asphalt  now  exceeds  the  entire  amount  imported  from 
all  foreign  sources.  Note  the  phenomenal  growth  of  the  industry. 

I  might,  for  the  information  of  the  committee,  state  that  from 
1900  until  January,  1912,  the  Standard  Oil  Co.,  which  has  the  largest 
refinery  in  California,  made  no  asphalt.  It  distilled  the  oil  to  a 
much  lower  point.  Instead  of  selling  the  residue  at  the  consistency 
of  asphalt  it  distilled  it  down  to  coke,  recovering  a  larger  percentage 
of  distillates,  and  sold  the  coke  on  the  Pacific  Coast  for  use  in  foun- 
dries and  brass  works.  While  California,  prior  to  the  discovery  of 
fuel  oil,  had  been  extraordinarily  handicapped  in  its  lack  of  fuel  for 
manufacturing  purposes,  the  opening  up  of  its  oil  fields  enlarged  its 
opportunities  for  manufacturing  enormously. 

Statistics  printed  in  the  said  pamphlet  of  the  Union  Oil  Co.  (which, 
however,  do  not  agree  with  those  in  Mineral  Resources  of  the  United 
States),  assert  that  the  production  of  California  asphalt  has  increased 
from  27,000  tons  in  1901  to  180,000  tons  in  1911,  while  in  the  same 
time  importations  of  asphalt  have  grown  only  from  139,047  tons  to 
174,234  tons.  (The  first  statement  shows  for  California  asphalt  an 
increase  of  153,000  tons,  or  nearly  600  per  cent,  as  compared  with 
an  increase  in  importations  of  asphalt  of  35,187  tons,  or  26  per  cent.) 
It  is  in  that  pamphlet  claimed  that  the  paving  efficiency  of  California 
Union  asphalt  is  90  yards  per  ton,  while  that  of  Bermudez  Lake  is 
85  yards,  and  of  Trinidad  Lake  58  yards.  All  of  the  foregoing  is  not 
convincing  proof  of  the  need  for  tariff  protection  to  the  California 
material. 

There  are  two  factors  in  the  price  of  asphalt,  one  the  price  per  ton 
at  wliich  it  is  sold  and  the  other  the  number  of  yards  of  pavement 
got  ten  out  of  a  ton.  It  is  very  important  to  remember  that. 

By  way  of  illustration,  as  shown  in  a  tabulation  which  we  will  file 
with  the  committee,  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  at  $20  a  ton,  laying  58 


SCHEDULE  B.  495 

PABAGBAPH  90— ASPHAI/TDM. 

yards  to  the  ton  (which  is  the  figure  given  in  the  aforesaid  competi- 
tor's pamphlet,  and  which  is  correct)  makes  a  pro  rata  cost  of  34  cents 
per  square  yard  of  pavement. 

But  California  asphalt,  sold  at  the  same  price,  namely  $20  per  ton, 
alleged  to  lay  90  square  yards  of  pavement  to  the  ton,  as  claimed  by 
the  maker,  shows  a  pro  rata  cost  of  22  cents  per  square  yard  of  pave- 
ment. Reversing  the  illustration,  if  Trinidad  refined  Lake  asphalt 
were  to  be  sold  at  22  cents  per  square  yard  of  pavement  (which  is  the 
cost  per  square  yard  of  California  asphalt  if  laying  90  square  yards  of 
pavement  to  a  ton  when  sold  at  $20  per  ton),  thus  being  put  on  a 
parity  with  the  paving  value  of  the  California  product,  the  selling 
price  per  ton  of  tne  Trinidad  article  would  have  to  be  $12.76.  Thus 
the  bitumen  contents  of  a  ton  of  refined  asphalt  is  a  controlling  feature 
in  determining  its  relative  value  as  well  as  the  price. 

Crude  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt,  as  mined  at  the  lake,  contains  33 
per  cent  of  water,  invisible  to  the  eye,  but  which  can  be  dried  out  in 
stills  in  24  hours'  treatment.  It  also  contains  28  per  cent  of  sand  as 
fine  as  the  grains  of  Portland  cement,  held  perfectly  in  suspension 
and  so  ultimately  associated  with  the  bitumen  that  it  can  not  be 
settled  out  mechanically,  even  though  the  asphalt  be  heated  to  several 
hundred  degrees  temperature  Fahrenheit.  To  recapitulate,  33  per 
cent  of  water  plus  28  per  cent  of  sand  makes  a  total  of  61  per  cent  of 
the  contents  of  the  crude  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt,  with  39  per  cent  of 
bitumen  remaining.  Let  us  apply  these  facts  in  considering  the 
tariff.  Instead  of  using  39  per  cent  bitumen,  for  a  quick  mental  cal- 
culation, we  may  use  round  numbers,  or  40  per  cent.  If  this  40  per 
cent  bitumen  pays,  as  it  does,  an  import  duty  of  $1.50  per  ton,  100 
per  cent  of  bitumen  upon  the  same  import  rate  would  pay  $3.75  per 
ton.  That  is  really  what  the  duty  amounts  to  when  considered  with 
reference  to  the  bitumen  value,  which  is  the  test  which  should  be 
applied.  Per  contra,  the  California  asphalt,  distilled  from  petroleum 
and  that  which  is  distilled  from  Mexican  petroleum,  is  practically 
100  per  cent  bitumen. 

It  is  further  stated  in  the  pamphlet  of  the  Union  Coal  Co. : 

The  combined  capacity  of  the  company's  asphalt  refineries  is  at  present  5,500  tons 
per  month,  or  66,000  tons  per  annum.  Construction  to  increase  refining  facilities  now 
under  way  will  give  the  company  a  total  production  of  over  100,000  tons  per  year, 
equivalent  to  approximately  one-fifth  of  the  present  total  consumption  of  asphalt  in 
the  United  States, 

which  statement  is  a  notable  expression  of  faith  in  the  ability  of 
the  California  producers  of  residual  asphalt  to  do  an  increasingly 
large  business  under  any  and  all  circumstances. 

1  think  it  is  pertinent  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
this  fact  also  that,  while  the  California  producers  of  asphalt  are 
not  giving  credit  to  the  Barber  Asphalt  Paving  Co.  for  what  it  has 
done  beneficially  for  their  industry,  the  Barber  Co.  has  placed  them 
tinder  obligations  that  they  should  never  forget.  Tie  Barber  Co. 
procured,  as  I  have  said,  a  refining  plant  at  LOB  Angeles  in  which 
to  manufacture  asphalt  for  use  in  paving  contacts  on  the  Pacific 
Coast.  It  is  the  custom  of  the  company  to  maintain  a  chemical 
laboratory  in  connection  with  its  refining  plants.  In  refining  in 
California  the  chief  chemist  of  the  company  discovered  that  there 
were  results  possible  when  heating  petroleum  to  very  high  tem- 


496  TABIFP   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  9O— ASPHAI/TTJM. 

peratures  that  were  distinctly  injurious  to  the  viscosity,  or  stick- 
iness, so  to  speak,  of  the  aspnalt.  Anyone  who  has  stirred  a  mess 
of  porridge  or  gruel  knows  that  if  the  fire  is  hot  there  must  be  care- 
ful stirring  to  prevent  burning,  which  will  show,  if  not  controlled, 
in  the  dissemination  of  little  brown  or  black  particles  throughout 
the  mass.  Quoting  from  "Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States" 
for  1905,  page  1165: 

Expert  chemists  state  that  the  refiners  are  handicapped  by  the  absence  of  a  pro- 
cess of  manufacture  which  will  economically  produce  an  asphaltum  free  from  carbenes 
(deleterious  products  of  the  "cracking"  process  which  goes  on  in  the  stills  during 
the  distillation  of  the  heavier  oils),  with  a  uniform  and  suitable  penetration  and 
possessing  stability  on  heating. 

A  scientific  paper  by  the  chief  chemist  of  the  Barber  Co.  was  the 
first  to  call  public  attention  to  this  dangerous  feature  in  the  making 
of  asphalt  from  petroleum  by  distillation.  The  facts  had  been  dis- 
covered by  him  in  the  laboratory  of  the  company  after  exhaustive 
experiments.  When,  at  times,  the  company  had  paving  contracts  on 
the  Pacific  coast  greater  than  could  be  served  by  the  capacity  of  its 
oil  refinery,  it  bought  asphalt  made  at  other  California  refineries,  and 
in  so  doing  found  that  the  practice  was  very  irregular  in  those  other 
refineries,  and  that  the  burnt  atoms,  or  "  carbenes,"  sometimes  ran  as 
high  as  15  to  20  per  cent  of  the  asphaltum.  Apart  from  the  fact  that 
this  had  not  been  previously  called  to  their  notice,  the  reason  for  the 
varying  quality  was  that  the  different  refineries  were  primarily  inter- 
ested in  producing  distillates,  such  as  gasoline,  engine  distillates,  and 
fuel  distillates,  all  of  them  being  the  major  products  bringing  the 
higher  prices  which  could  be  obtained  in  the  refining  of  petroleum. 
The  chemist  of  the  Barber  Co.  made  use  of  a  solvent  called  "carbon 
tetrachloride,"  in  which  the  carbenes  would  not  dissolve.  He  was 
thus  enabled  to  instruct  our  chemical  laboratory  in  Los  Angeles  that 
they  should  purchase  asphalt  under  specifications  that  the  asphalt 
obtained  should  not  have  over  2£  per  cent  of  carbenes,  or  atoms  that 
could  not  be  dissolved  in  the  carbon  tetrachloride  solution.  An 
assistant  chemist  representing  the  company  was  placed  in  the  refiner- 
ies from  which  we  were  purchasing.  There  was  trouble  at  first  to 
lead  the  manufacturers  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  and  abide  by  the 
stipulations,  though  finally  they  did  doso.  The  resultof  that  education 
was  a  marked  improvement  in  the  quality  of  the  product  and  in  its 
reliability.  Thus  the  rapid  growth  m  the  business  of  the  California 
refineries  has  been  contributed  to  in  a  great  degree  by  information 
obtained  from  the  Barber  Co. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  there  any  competition  of  foreign  asphalt  with  your 
company  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Not  very  much.     About  14,000  tons  last  year. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  does  not  amount  to  anything? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Practically. 

Mr.  PAYNL.  You  control  all  the  foreign  asphalt? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Ho.  We  control  two  asphalt  lakes,  one  in  Trinidad 
and  one  in  Venezuela.  There  are  foreign  asphalts  which  we  do  not 
control. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  art  not  available? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  They  are  Available  if  anyone  chooses  to  get  them. 


SCHEDULE  B.  497 

PABAGBAPH  9O— ASPHAI/TTTM. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  Trinidad  asphalt  has  a  peculiar  quality  which 
makes  it  valuable  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Yes;  largely  because  it  has  not  been  subjected  to 
very  great  heating,  as  in  artificial  distillation  of  crude  petroleum. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Those  other  asphalts  you  speak  of — they  never  yet 
have  been  able  to  make  any  terms  with  those  countries,  have  they? 

Mr.  SEWAIJL.  They  are  not  extensively  imported. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  have  been  driven  out  of  there,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Been  driven  out  of  where? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Out  of  the  country  where  this  other  asphalt  is  pro- 
duced. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  No;  there  are  asphalts  in  Cuba,  in  western  Venezu- 
ela, on  the  Magdalena  River  in  Colombia,  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa, 
and  in  Turkey.  The  reason  that  consumers  purchase  the  Trinidad 
Lake  asphalt  and  the  Venezuelan  asphalt  is  the  same  that  would 
apply,  for  instance,  if  you  or  I  were  to  go  into  a  clothing  store  and 
select  the  more  costly  of  two  suits  of  clothes  because  we  had  learned 
to  recognize  additional  value  in  clothes  of  a  certain  make  and  quality. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  If  we  should  take  all  this  duty  off  of  asphalt  would  it 
result  in  closing  up  that  California  supply? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  No,  Mr.  Payne;  first,  because  they  can  sell  and  are 
selling  at  as  low  as  $16.50  per  ton  an  article  of  high  bitumen  content. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  superior  quality  of  your  asphalt  would  drive  them 
out? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  It  has  not  driven  them  out,  according  to  their  own 
pamphlet.  May  I  illustrate  with  the  same  figures  I  gave  before  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  There  is  no  use  of  giving  those.  I  have  those  in  my 
mind.  I  ought  not  to  ask  you  any  questions.  It  is  getting  very 
late.  I  ought  not  to  interrupt  you  at  all. 

Mr.  HILL.  Let  me  make  this  suggestion:  What  would  you  think 
about  a  proposition  to  put  a  revenue  tax,  import  tax,  of  50  cents 
per  ton  on  bitumen  contents  of  asphalt  and  then  put  an  internal- 
revenue  tax  on  the  asphalt  that  was  made  from  that  in  the  United 
States?  Could  we  not  get  a  good  deal  more  revenue  than  we  get 
now  from  simply  an  import  dutv,  and  wouldn't  it  cause  an  increase 
in  the  production  of  Mexico  coming  in? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  You  see  it  is  not  refined  in  Mexico,  and  I  am  afraid 
you  would  find  it  pretty  difficult  to  follow  through  in  collecting 
revenue. 

Fifth.  Because,  free  of  duty,  imported  asphalt  could  be  supplied 
in  refined  form  by  direct  shipment  to  southern  cities.  This  would 
save  heavy  rail  freight  charges  from  refineries  located  at  northern 
seaboard  points.  New  Orleans,  Mobile,  and  other  cities  similarly 
situated  should  be  able  to  buy  asphalt  as  cheaply  as  New  York 
can  buy  it. 

Sixth.  Because  the  increasing  use  of  heavy  oils  for  road  treatment, 
for  fuel,  and  other  purposes  is  resulting  in  constant  advances  in  the 
price  of  these  materials. 

The  Barber  Asphalt  Paving  Co.  will  lower  its  prices  to  correspond 
with  a  removal  of  the  tariff  immediately  when  such  reduction  goes 
into  effect.  The  situation  was,  I  think,  absurd  enough  up  to  1909. 
But  now  that  the  Mexican  oil  can  come  in  free  of  duty  it  seems  per- 

78959°— VOL  1—13 32 


498 


TABJFF   HEAEINGS. 


PABAGBAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

fectly  ridiculous  that  a  tariff  on  asphalt  should  be  retained  for  pur- 
poses of  protection;  and  as  to  putting  on  a  duty  as  suggested  by 
Mr.  Hill — begging  your  pardon  for  differing  with  you,  Mr.  Hill — I 
think  that  when  the  people  of  this  whole  country  are  attempting  to 
improve  roads  and  when  the  cost  of  the  roads  falls  so  generally  and  so 
evenly  upon  such  a  large  number  of  people,  it  is  a  tax  that  might  con- 
sistently better  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  same  amount  of  revenue 
raised  hi  some  other  way. 

Mr.  HELL.  It  occurred  to  me  as  I  was  sitting  here  we  might  get  in 
revenue  by  putting  a  corresponding  internal-revenue  tax  on  the 
American  production  and  not  on  the  Mexican  production  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  I  should  tliink  that  the  correct  practice  would  be  to 
make  asphaltum,  crude  and  refined,  free  of  duty  and  thus  permit 
those  who  prefer  these  products  because  of  then*  quality  to  get  them 
at  a  proportionately  reduced  price. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  thank  you. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Can  you  tell  us  generally  what  effect  the  reduction 
which  you  suggest  would  have  in  the  expense  of  building  a  half  mile 
of  road  ? 

Mr.  SHACKLEFOKD.  Or  on  a  square  yard  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  At  58  yards  to  the  ton,  $1.77  lower  per  ton  at  the 
present  market  price;  or  about  3  cents  a  yard. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  A  saving  of  3  cents  a  yard  ? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Yes.  Tliis  year  there  has  been  new  construction  of 
city  streets  approximating  10,000,000  yards,  not  inclusive  of  what 
are  known  as  good  roads'"  which  would  vastly  increase  the  total. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  Sewall? 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Yes;  thank  you. 

Trinidad  refined  asphalt  imported  into  iht  United  States  in  1912. 


Date  of  shipment  from  Trinidad. 

Name  of  ship. 

Tons  of  2,240 
pounds  each. 

New 

Orleans. 

Mobile. 

Peb  21 

Republic  

1,166 

Mar  12 

Three  Marys  

1,465 

May  16 

Smith  . 

426 
1,394 

May  25 

Matador  

June  8  .  . 

Frednes  

1,005 
1,016 

June  20 

Trvm  

July  17 

Malwa  

1,005 

Aug.  7  .  . 

Trvm  

998 
2,023 
2,017 

Sept.  19. 

Frednes  

Sept.  25 

Trym  

Oct.  18.. 

Amanda  

1,012 

Trym  

991 

To 

To 

6,468 
8,050 

8,050 

14,518 

16,260 

COST   OF   BARRELS. 


The  cost  of  barrels  to  October  31  at  Trinidad  was  $1.81  per  ton  of  2,000  pounds. 
The  production  shows  that  4.6  barrels  were  used  per  ton,  making  the  cost  of  barrels 


SCHEDULE  B. 


499 


PARAGBAPH  90— ASFHALTDM. 

about  40  cents  each.    Triniday  Lake  asphalt  at  $20  per  ton,  58  yards,  $0.34  per  yard. 
California  asphalt,  at  $20  per  ton,  90  yards,  $0.22  per  yard. 

If  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  were  to  be  sold  at  $0.22  per  square  yard,  with  58  yards 
per  ton,  its  selling  price  would  have  to  be  $12.76  per  ton. 

PROPERTY  INVESTMENT. 
[Real  estate,  plant,  and  equipment.) 

The  New  Trinidad  Lake  Asphalt  Co.  (Ltd) $3, 467,  657 

New  York  &  Bermudez  Co 1,592,401 

The  Barber  Asphalt  Paving  Co.  (Maurer,  N.  J.) 2, 181,  769 

7,  241,  827 

The  New  Trinidad  Lake  Asphalt  Co.  pays  a  royalty  on  crude  asphalt  exported  of 
40  cents  per  ton,  also  an  export  duty  of  $1.20  per  ton. 

The  New  York  &  Bermudez  Co.  pays  an  export  duty  of  4  bolivars  per  ton,  which 
equals  77  cents  per  ton. 

[Reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Chemical  Industry,  Apr.  15, 1905.    No.  7,  Vol.  XXIV.] 
CARBON  TETRACHLORIDE  AND  ITS  USE  AS  A  SOLVENT  FOR  DIFFERENTIATING  BITUMENS. 

By  Clifford  Richardson  and  C.  N.  Forrest. 

Carbon  tetrachloride  has  attracted  of  late  very  considerable  attention  owing  to  the 
fact  that  it  has  been  made  available  at  a  lower  price  and  in  a  purer  form  than  here- 
tofore, and  it  has  been  suggested  as  a  substitute  for  carbon  bisulphide  as  a  solvent. 
Tetrachloride,  as  is  well  known,  is  made  by  exposing  a  mixture  of  the  vapor  of  the 
bisulphide  and  chlorine  to  a  red  heat,  forming  thereby  carbon  tetrachloride  and 
sulphur  chloride.  If  the  heat  is  too  low,  carbon  bisulphide  remains  in  the  tetra- 
chloride, and  if  too  high,  carbon  trichloride  (C2C61)  is  formed.  As  a  result  of  this, 
or  because  of  insufficient  purification,  much  of  the  tetrachloride  that  has  been  on  the 
market  heretofore  has  contained  from  1  to  2  per  cent  of  bisulphide,  thus  impairing 
its  suitability  for  certain  purposes. 

The  physical  properties  of  the  two  solvents  may  be  compared  with  interest: 


CC14 

CS, 

Odor.  .              

Aromatic  

Rank. 

Inflammability  

Noninflammable,  nonexplo- 

149°  P,.  vary  inflammable  — 

Specific  gravity  15/15°  C  

sive. 
1.604  

explosive, 
1.270. 

Vapour  tension  

Low  

High. 

Specific  heat                     

High  

Low. 

Index  of  refraction  

1.464  

1.628. 

76.  6°  C  

46°  C. 

Toxic  effect            

None  

Poisonous. 

The  early  supplies  of  carbon  tetrachloride  which  came  into  the  writers'  hands  had 
a  specific  gravity  of  1.593  and  a  pale  straw  color.  On  distillation,  this  material  began 
to  boil  below  43°  C.  showing  the  presence  of  some  substance  of  even  lower  boiling 
point  than  carbon  bisulphide.  On  continuing  the  distillation  through  an  18-column 
Young  dephlegmator  the  following  results  were  obtained  on  a  common  tetrachloride 
of  specific  gravity  1.593: 

Per  cent. 

Below  43°  C 0. 13 

43  to  47..  .31 


47  to  50. 
50  to  60. 
60  to  70. 
70  to  75. 


10 

31 

22 

05 

75  to  76.5..  .61 


Total. 


500  TARTPP   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

It  appears  that  1.73  per  cent  of  the  tetrachloride  distilled  below  the  boiling  point  of 
the  pure  tetrachloride.  On  further  fractionation  1.5  per  cent  of  pure  carbon  bisulphide 
was  obtained  from  the  lower  fractions,  while  the  residue  boiling  above^?0  C.  left,  on 
spontaneous  evaporation,  a  substance  which  sublimed,  very  readily  into  quite  pure 
crystals  of  carbon  trichloride,  C2Cle. 

More  recently  a  tetrachloride  has  been  put  upon  the  market  by  the  Acker  Process 
Co.,  of  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.,  which  has  been  found  to  be  much  purer  than  the  ordinary 
commercial  supply.  On  distillation  under  conditions  similar  to  those  followed  in  the 
examination  of  the  earlier  sample,  the  most  volatile  constituent  was  found  to  come 
over  between  70°  and  75°  C.,  and  amounted  to  but  0.8  per  cent.  It  contains  a  small 
amount  of  bisulphide.  The  boiling  point  then  ran  up  rapidly  to  that  of  pure  tetra- 
chloride, the  entire  distillate  in  the  first  fractionation  below  that  point  amounting  to  but 
2.7  per  cent.  The  material  as  supplied  to  the  trade  by  the  Acker  Co.  is  practically 
pure  tetrachloride,  having  a  specific  gravity  as  shown  of  1.604  at  15°  C.  The  solvent 
leaves  no  residue  on  evaporation,  although  it  contains  a  small  amount  of  trichloride, 
and  is  consequently  an  extremely  pure  article,  at  least  from  a  commercial  point  of 
view. 

Considered  merely  as  a  standard  for  extraction  on  a  commercial  scale,  it  is  the 
equal  in  its  solvent  power  of  almost  all  other  solvents,  exceeding  them  to  some  degree 
with  certain  substances.  It  is  miscible  with  all  other  solvents  of  the  same  class, 
resembling  in  this  respect  carbon  bisulphide,  and,  like  the  latter,  it  dissolves  but  a 
trace  of  water. 

The  greater  advantage  in  the  use  of  tetrachloride  aa  a  solvent  lies  in  the  fact  that 
while  bisulphide  is  inflammable  at  149°  C.,  In  consequence  of  which  it  takes  fire  when 
its  vapor  comes  in  contact  with  a  heated  steam  pipe,  and  is  explosive  when  mixed 
with  three  volumes  of  air,  it  is  not  only  quite  uninflammable,  but  imparts  this  prop- 
erty to  other  inflammable  substances,  such  as  benzol,  turpentine,  and  naphtha,  when 
mixed  therewith.  Sixty  parts  by  volume  of  tetrachloride  to  40  of  naphtha,  40  vol- 
umes to  60  of  benzol,  and  equal  parts  with  turpentine  prevents  ignition  of  these 
otherwise  inflammable  substances.  The  vapor  of  tetrachloride  is  not  unpleasant,  nor 
does  it  appear  to  have  any  toxic  effect,  both  of  which  properties  make  this  materjal 
preferable  to  bisulphide  in  this  respect.  Tetrachloride  has  a  much  higher  specific 
gravity,  boiling  point,  and  specific  heat  than  carbon  bisnlphide,  but  a  lower  vapor 
tension  and  index  of  refraction.  Owing  to  its  high  specific  gravity  its  volume  weight 
is  much  greater,  and  a  much  larger  amount  of  it  must  be  employed  to  obtain  the 
same  volume  of  solvent  as  can  be  seen  from  the  following  figures: 

[Volume  of  1  kilometer  in  liters.] 

62°  naphtha 1.366 

Benzol 1. 131 

CS2 788 

CC14 6231 

Water 1.000 

It  appears  that  a  pound  of  bisulphide  will  go  as  far  as  1.3  pounds  of  tetrachloride, 
while  a  pound  of  naphtha  has  the  same  volume  as  nearly  2.25  pounds. 

Experiments  have  also  shown  that  its  solvent  action,  upon  bitumens  at  least,  is  not 
as  prompt  as  that  of  carbon  bisulphide,  probably  the  lower  rate  of  diffusion  being  due 
to  its  greater  density. 

The  value  of  carbon  tetrachloride  as  a  solvent  in  the  examination  of  bitumens  lies 
in  the  fact  that  it  exercises  a  selective  action  on  the  hydrocarbons  and  their  derivatives 
composing  many  of  the  native  bitumens,  residual  pitches,  and  tars,  while  the  true 
asphalts  are  dissolved  thereby  to  the  game  extent  as  by  carbon  bisulphide.  The  same 
may  be  said  in  regard  to  gilsonite,  but  such  native  bitumens  as  grahamite  are  not 
soluble  in  tetrachloride  at  air  temperatures  to  the  same  extent  as  in  carbon  bisulphide, 
as  much  as  75.3  per  cent  of  an  insoluble  nature  having  been  found  in  a  grahamite  from 
Colorado,  although  the  type  of  grahamite  from  West  Virginia  contained  but  1.3  per 
cent  in  this  form.  The  value  of  the  solvent  for  differentiating  the  extent  to  which  any 
native  bitumen  has  been  weathered  and  condensed  is,  therefore,  apparent. 

It  is  of  additional  value  in  another  way  in  revealing  any  changes  which  may  be 
brought  about  in  a  bitumen  which,  althoug'h  quite  soluble  in  tetrachloride  in  its  native 
state,  has  been  injured  by  treatment  at  excessively  high  temperatures  in  industrial 
processes.  For  example,  residual  pitches  carefully  prepared  from  California  and  Texas 
petroleums  having  an  asphaltic  base,  are  entirely  soluble  in  tetrachloride  at  air  tem- 
peratures, but  as  they  are  prepared  industrially  they  contain  from  1  to  7  per  cent  of 
bitumen  in  a  form  not  soluble  in  tetrachloride,  very  conclusive  evidence  that  the 
original  bitumen  has  suffered  a  change  in  character  at  the  high  temperature  to  which 


SCHEDULE  B.  501 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTUM. 

it  has  been  submitted,  this  often  reaching  700°  to  900°  F.  In  the  same  way,  in  the 
careless  refining  of  asphalt  for  industrial  purposes,  the  bitumen  may  become  more  or 
less  altered  and  insoluble.  If  this  has  taken  place  it  can  be  readily  detected  by 
determining  if  anything  is  present  insoluble  in  tetrachloride  which  is  soluble  in  carbon 
bisulphide.  As  an  example,  an  asphalt  recently  introduced  on  the  market  the  facil- 
ities for  refining  which  were  inadequate,  showed  17  per  cent  of  bitumen  insoluble  in 
tetrachloride,  but  with  improvement  in  the  process  of  refining  this  form  of  bitumen 
gradually  disappeared. 

That  carbon  tetrachloride  is  a  solvent  of  value  in  determining  the  character  of 
bitumens  seems,  therefore,  to  be  assured.  It  must  for  this  purpose,  however,  be 
employed  at  a  temperature  not  exceeding  25°  C.,.  and  should  be  free  from  carbon 
bisulphide,  and,  as  used  in  this  way,  the  writers  can  cordially  recommend  it  to  those 
interested  in  the  examination  of  native  bitumens. 

TELLS   OF  MEXICAN   OIL  SITUATION. 
[California  Oil  World,  Dec.  26, 1912.] 

Los  ANGELES,  December  25,  1912. 

Californians  will  be  interested  in  the  following  interview  published  in  the  National 
Petroleum  News  with  A.  B.  Chamberlain,  formerly  manager  of  the  Indian  Refining 
Co. 'a  road-oil  department  and  now  a  broker  for  heavy  oils  in  New  York: 

"Mexico,  with  its  enormous  production  and  no  local  consumption  to  speak  of, 
offers  the  logical  supply  of  heavy  oils  and  asphalt  to  this  country,"  said  Mr.  Cham- 
berlain. "The  only  trouble  now  is  we  can  not  get  the  boats.  There  are  plenty  of 
them  being  built,  but  not  enough  of  them  will  be  finished  to  permit  of  any  great 
improvement  in  the  situation  until  next  fall.  The  high  prices  of  crude  and  finished 
petroleum  products  in  this  country  will  force  this  country  to  use  Mexican  and  Cali- 
fornia oil  for  road  and  asphalt  purposes.  The  next  season  will  be  a  bigger  road-oil 
season  than  any  other  we  have  experienced." 

The  Standard  Oil  interests  are  reported  to  have  cut  the  asphalt  market  in  California 
$5  a  ton,  making  it  $17.50  delivered  at  eastern  ports.  The  Union  Oil  Co.  had  been 
sticking  consistently  to  $22  until  the  cut  came  in  November.  Mexican  asphalt  can 
be  placed  in  this  country  at  between  $16  and  $17  a  ton,  and  it  is  reported  that  the 
Standard  interests  have  reached  such  an  understanding  with  all  other  interests  oper- 
ating in  Mexico,  that  they  will  handle  substantially  the  entire  output  of  that  country 
to  the  United  States,  running  the  crude  by  tank  boats  to  their  Atlantic  coast  refinery, 
and  there  splitting  it  for  what  little  ends  it  may  have  and  putting  the  rest  out  for 
road  oil  and  asphalt. 

ASPHALT  YIELD  FROM  CALIFORNIA  CRUDE   OIL, 

From  Kern  River  field  50  per  cent  out  turn. 
From  southern  California  25  per  cent  out  turn. 
They  each  furnish  about  one-half  the  product. 
The  two  averaged  at  half  and  half  37  per  cent. 

Asphalt  tonnage  139,275  tons,  requiring  at  37  per  cent  371,864  tons  of  oil,  at  6.5 
barrels  per  ton  2,417,116  barrels. 
Crude  oil  production,  1911,  81,134,913  barrels,  of  which  2,417,116  is  3  per  cent. 

Capacity  per  month  1,400  tons  of  2,000  pounds,  labor  list. 

[Los  Angeles  refinery  of  Barber  Asphalt  Paving  Co.] 

Per  month. 

One  superintendent $170 

One  assistant  superintendent 110 

One  head  still  man 110 

Two  assistant  still  men,  at  $100  each 200 

Two  engineers,  at  $100  each 200 

One  barrel  foreman 97 

Six  barrel  laborers,  at  $60  each 360 

One  yard  laborer 75 

One  night  watchman 75 

Total,  16  employees 1, 397 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC  ROADS, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  January  6,  1912. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  M.  HOWARD, 

Hotel  Walton,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

DEAR  SIR:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  January  1,  asking  for  information  concerning 
recent  road  legislation  and  expenditures  made  by  several  States,  I  am  herewith 
inclosing  a  brief  digest  of  the  principal  features  of  the  state  laws  in  force  at  the  present 
time  and  such  information  on  expenditures  as  is  obtainable. 

The  States  of  California,  Connecticut,  Idaho,  Maine,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  New  Mexico,  New  York,  Rhode  Island,  and  Utah  have  voted  or  author- 
ized road  bond  issues  amounting  to  $136,763,000.  A  bond  issue  of  $50,000,000  will 
come  before  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  for  its  third  passage  during  the  present  year. 
Ohio  voted  against  a  $50,000,000  oond  issue  in  1912,  and  Colorado  also  voted  against 
a  $10,000,000  bond  issue  in  the  same  year,  the  latter  being  defeated  by  a  very  small 
margin. 

According  to  statistics  compiled  in  this  office  the  State  appropriations  for  State-aid 
roads  in  the  several  States  available  for  expenditure  in  1912  were  as  follows: 


Alabama $270,000 

Colorado 8,300 

Connecticut 1,000,000 

Delaware 30,000 

Georgia 1,543,800 


Idaho. 

Illinois 

Iowa 

Kansas. .. . 
Kentucky. 
Louisiana. 

Maine 

Maryland . 
Michigan. 


193,000 
100,000 

10,000 
6,500 

25,000 
130,  000 
250,000 
200,000 
250,000 


Missouri $80,000 

Nevada 20,000 

New  Hampshire 68,000 

New  Jersey 750,000 

New  York 23,000,000 

North  Carolina 5,000 

Ohio 660,000 

Oklahoma 5,000 

Pennsylvania 1,000,000 

Utah 240,000 

Vermont 315,000 

Virginia 310,000 

Washington 1,093,400 

Wisconsin 250,000 


The  State  appropriation  available  for  expenditure  on  trunk  lines  for  construction 
during  1912  were  as  follows: 


California $135,  000 

Connecticut 2, 000,  000 

Maryland 3, 170,  000 

New  Hampshire 385,  000 


New  Jersey $10, 000 

New  Mexico 87,820 

Pennsylvania 3,  000,  000 

Rhode  Island 940,  000 


The  above  figures  are  not  in  every  case  additional  to  the  State  bond  issues,  but  are 
given  to  show  the  funds  available  for  State  aid  during  the  year  1912  and  represent 
revenues  derived  from  several  sources,  including  bond  issues,  direct  taxation,  auto- 
mobile licenses,  and  so  forth. 

In  addition  to  the  amounts  already  given,  a  summary  of  the  statistics  received  from 
30  States  shows  that  $72,458,216  have  been  expended  by  counties  and  other 
municipal  unite  for  highway  construction  during  the  last  fiscal  year. 

This  office  is  now  preparing  a  statement  of  the  amount  and  value  of  convict  labor 
performed  in  the  various  States  upon  highways  and  also  information  concerning  road 
maintenance,  which  is  one  of  the  most  important  features  of  the  road  problem. 

It  is  very  probable  that  since  the  legislatures  of  42  States  convene  during  the  present 
year,  considerable  road  legislation  will  be  passed. 

Very  respectfully,  PAUL  D.  SARGENT, 

Acting  Director. 

Alabama. — A  highway  law  was  passed  in  1911  providing  for  five  commissioners  to 
serve  without  pay  and  a  State  highway  engineer  at  a  salary  of  $4,000  per  annum.  The 
annual  appropriation  is  $154,000,  and  the  State  pays  50  per  cent  01  the  cost  of  con- 
struction. County  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to 
$3,261,500. 

Arizona.- — Road  laws  were  passed  and  the  office  of  State  engineer  created  in  1912. 
The  State  engineer  is  subordinate  to  the  board  of  control.  Hifl  principal  duties  are 
to  give  advice  to  county  road  officials.  The  State  road  tax  fund  is  $250,000,  and  road 
district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $35,500. 


SCHEDULE  B.  303 

PARAGRAPH  OO— ASPHALTT7M. 

California. — In  1911  the  highway  commission  was  appointed,  composed  of  three 
members  who  report  to  the  department  of  engineering.  The  office  of  State  highway 
engineer  was  created  and  a  State  bond  issue  of  $18,000,000  is  being  expended.  The 
State  participates  only  in  trunk  line  construction  and  pays  the  whole  cost  of  the  same. 
The  total  State,  county,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1912,  amount 
to  24,251,600. 

Colorado. — The  State  highway  commission  is  composed  of  three  members  appointed 
for  six-year  terms,  with  a  civil  engineer  secretary.  One  of  the  principal  provisions 
of  the  highway  law  is  the  preparation  of  maps  showing  all  roads  for  purposes  of  clas- 
sification, etc.  No  money  can  be  expended  within  the  corporate  limit*  of  any  city, 
town,  or  county  unless  the  commissioners  provide  by  taxation  for  an  amount  equal 
to  twice  the  amount  appropriated  to  State,  city,  town,  or  county,  and  in  case  of  failure 
to  BO  provide,  its  apportionment  shall  be  distributed  among  the  other  counties.  The 
State  s  proportion  is  one-third  and  the  counties'  two-thirds  on  State  roads.  The  total 
amount  of  county  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  is  $682,600.  The  State 
bond  issue  was  defeated  by  a  small  margin  November  5,  1912. 

Connecticut. — The  State  highway  department  consists  of  one  commissioner,  one 
deputy,  and  one  division  engineer.  The  State  aid  biennial  appropriation  is  $1,000,000. 
The  trunk  line  appropriation  is  $2,000,000.  Automobile  license  revenues  amount  to 
approximately  $252,000  annually. 

Delaware. — The  road  affairs  of  each  of  the  three  counties  are  administered  by  the 
levy  court  of  each  county.  The  1912  State  aid  appropriation  amounts  to  $30,000. 

Florida. — County,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912, 
amount  to  $1,216,000. 

Georgia. — County,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 
1912,  amount  to  $474,000,  and  the  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $750,000  annually. 
Road  funds  are  expended  by  the  county  commissioners  of  each  county.  The  value 
of  convict  labor  is  estimated  at  $543,800. 

Idaho. — A  State  highway  commission  was  established  in  1911,  composed  of  the 
governor  and  two  other  State  officials  who  serve  without  pay.  Special  appropriations 
are  made  for  roads  and  bridges,  the  total  amount  of  which  for  1912  was  $193,000. 
County  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912  amount  to  $308,526.  Special  commis- 
sipners,  of  which  the  State  engineer  is  always  a  member,  have  superseded  the  State 
highway  commission  for  the  expenditure  of  each  appropriation  made  by  the  State. 

Illinois. — The  State  highway  commission  is  composed  of  three  members  who  serve 
without  pay.  They  appoint  a  State  highway  engineer.  The  annual  appropriation 
is  $100,000.  It  is  usea  principally  for  administration  and  advice.  The  State  main- 
tains a  crushing  plant  operated  by  convicts  and  furnishes  crushed  stone  free  to  towns. 
County,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount 
to  $1,310,181. 

Indiana. — The  county  commissioners  and  the  township  trustees  have  control  of 
highways.  County  and  township  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to 
$9,454,847. 

Iowa. — The  State  highway  commission  is  composed  of  two  members  appointed  by 
the  trustees  of  the  State  College.  They  employ  a  highway  engineer  and  other  assist- 
ants, and  furnish  competent  highway  builders  free  to  each  county.  County  bonds 
issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $3,459,000. 

Kentucky. — The  governor  appoints  a  State  highway  commissioner  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $1,000,000,  and  county,  township,  and 
road  district  bonds  amount  to  $1,623,600. 

Louisiana. — The  State  board  of  engineers  appoints  a  highway  engineer  and  assist- 
ants and  furnishes  plans,  specifications,  and  advice  to  the  various  parishes,  cities, 
towns,  and  villages.  Not  more  than  $50,000  annually  may  be  apportioned  to  each 
parish.  County  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $183,256.  The 
estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $421,250  annually. 

Maine. — The  State  highway  department  consists  of  a  State  highway  commissioner 
and  assistants.  The  annual  appropriation  for  State  aid  is  $250,000.  The  automobile 
license  revenue  amounts  to  approximately  $100,000  and  is  expended  on  trunk-line 
roads.  Bond  issue  of  $2,000,000  has  been  authorized,  which  will  be  financed  by  the 
revenue  derived  from  automobile  licenses. 

Maryland. — The  highway  commission  is  composed  of  the  governor  and  six  other 
members.  The  commission  appoints  a  chief  engineer.  The  State  pays  the  whole 
cost  of  trunk-line  construction  and  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  State-aid  roads.  State 
bond  issues  amount  to  $6,000,000  and  county  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to 
to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $383,500. 


504  TAETPP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

Massachusetts. — The  highway  commission  is  composed  of  three  members,  who 
appoint  a  chief  engineer.  The  State  pays  three-fourths  of  the  cost  of  construction. 
The  State  bond  issues  amount  to  $2,500,000,  $500,000  of  which  were  expended  in 
1912.  The  total  State  and  county  bond  issues,  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to 
$4,234807. 

Michigan. — A  State  highway  department  was  established  in  1909  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  instruction  in  road  building,  etc.  A  State  highway  commissioner  is  appointed 
for  a  term  of  four  years.  The  State  pays  a  reward  on  certain  types  of  roads  of  $250  to 
$1,000  per  mile.  County,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January 
1,  1912,  amount  to  $3,101,762. 

Minnesota. — The  State  highway  commision  is  composed  of  three  members,  with  a 
State  engineer-secretary.  The  State  pays  50  per  cent  and  the  county  50  per  cent  of 
the  cost  of  construction.  The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $652,500.  County, 
township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1912,  amount  to  $1,806,164. 

Mississippi.— County,  township,  and  road  district  bond  amount  to  $2,940,472. 

Missouri. — A  State  highway  engineer  is  appointed  by  the  State  board  of  agricul- 
ture. The  nature  of  the  work  performed  is  principally  educational.  County  and 
road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $819,100. 

Montana. — The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $90,124.  County  bonds  issued 
prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $2,214,600. 

Nebraska.— County  commissioners  have  supervision  of  highways  where  township 
organization  does  not  exist  and  they  may  appoint  a  highway  commissioner.  The 
State  and  county  each  pay  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  bridges,  to  which  State  aid  is 
granted.  The  county,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 
1912,  amount  to  $763,000. 

Nevada. — County  and  road  district  bonds  amount  to  $234,000. 

New  Hampshire. — The  State  highway  board  is  composed  of  the  governor  and  council 
and  the  State  engineer  designated  as  superintendent  of  highways.  Aid  is  appor- 
tioned to  towns  on  the  basis  of  appropriations  made  by  the  towns.  State  bonds 
issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amounted  to  $1,000,000,  and  county,  township,  and 
road  district  bonds  amounted  to  $245,135. 

New  Jersey. — The  State  highway  commission  is  composed  of  the  governor,  the 
president  of  the  senate,  the  speaker  of  the  house,  the  State  treasurer,  and  the  State 
commissioner  of  public  roads.  A  State  highway  engineer  and  four  division  engineers 
are  appointed.  The  State  pays  the  total  cost  of  the  State  roads  and  beginning  in 
1912  will  pay  40  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  State-aid  roads,  the  counties  paying  50  per 
cent  and  the  townships  10  per  cent.  The  total  county,  township,  and  road  district 
bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $2,494,428. 

New  Mexico. — The  highway  commission  is  composed  of  the  governor,  the  commis- 
sioner of  public  lands,  the  attorney  general,  the  State  auditor,  and  the  State  engineer. 
The  State  bond  issue  of  $5,000,000  was  authorized  in  1912.  County  bond  issues  pre- 
vious to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $293,800. 

New  York. — The  State  highway  commission  organization  is  composed  of  a  State 
superintendent,  two  deputies  and  secretary,  and  a  chief  engineer.  The  cost  of  State 
highways  is  paid  wholly  by  the  State.  The  cost  of  county  and  State  aid  highways 
is  paid  by  the  State  and  county  and  the  cost  of  town  highways  by  the  State,  county, 
and  town.  A  State  bond  issue  of  $50,000,000  has  been  expended  and  another  issue 
of  the  same  amount  was  authorized  during  1912,  making  the  total  State,  county,  and 
township  bonds  issued  $106,630,896. 

North  Carolina. — The  State  geological  board  acts  as  the  State  highway  department. 
The  State  geologist  is  the  active  member,  and  a  State  highway  engineer  is  appointed. 
The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $640,249.  County  ,  township,  and  road  dis- 
trict bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $3,272,300. 

North  Dakota. — The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $105,000,  and  the  total  county 
and  township  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $108,500. 

Oklahoma. — The  laws  of  1911  created  a  State  highway  department  composed  of  a 
State  highway  commissioner,  a  chief  engineer,  and  assistants,  whose  duties  are  prin- 
cipally educational  aud  advisory.  The  total  amount  of  county  and  township  bonds 
issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  are  $1,316,000,  and  the  value  of  statute  labor  is  esti- 
mated at  $731,120  annually. 

Oregon. — A  5  per  cent  fund  derived  from  the  sale  of  United  States  public  land  and  a 
direct  fund,  due  the  State  upon  compliance  with  the  laws  of  Congress  are  apportioned 
among  the  several  counties  on  the  basis  of  area  and  are  administered  by  the  county 
board. 

Pennsylvania. — The  State  highway  department  is  composed  of  a  State  highway  com- 
missioner, two  deputies,  and  a  chief  engineer.  State  aid  is  apportioned  according  to 


SCHEDULE  B.  505 

PARAGRAPH  9O— ASPHAI/TOM. 

the  mileage  of  township  and  county  roads,  the  State  paying  one-half  and  the  county 
and  township  one-half.  The  State  pays  the  whole  cost  of  State  roads.  The  total 
county,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to 
$19,513,328. 

Rhode  Island. — The  State  board  of  public  roads  is  composed  of  five  members.  An 
engineer  is  appointed.  The  State  pays  the  whole  cost  of  State  roads  and  one-fifth  the 
cost  of  State-aid  roads,  towns  paying  four-fifths.  State  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 
1912,  amounted  to  $1,800,000,  and  township  bonds  issued  amounted  to  $125,000. 

South  Carolina. — The  estimated  value  of  statute  labor  is  $456,088.  County  and 
township  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $492,000. 

South  Dakota. — Statute  labor  is  estimated  at  $202,500  annually  and  township  bonds 
issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $10,000. 

Tennessee. — In  1909  a  State  commission  of  public  roads  was  created  to  make  an 
investigation  and  report  to  the  succeeding  legislature  with  recommendations.  County, 
township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1912,  amount  to  $6,127,000 
and  statute  labor  is  estimated  at  $720,000. 

Texas. — County,  township,  and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912, 
amount  to  $11,146,032.  Statute  labor  is  estimated  at  $750,000  annually. 

Utah. — The  State  road  commission  is  composed  of  the  governor  and  four  other 
members.  State  aid  is  apportioned  equally  among  the  counties.  The  State  pays 
from  80  to  50  per  cent,  and  the  county  from  20  to  50  per  cent  of  construction.  State 
bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 1912,  amount  to  $260,000  and  county  bonds  amount  to 
$272,500. 

Vermont. — The  governor  appoints  a  State  highway  commissioner  and  the  commis- 
sioner appoints  a  supervisor  for  each  county.  The  State  and  town  each  pay  one-half 
the  cost  of  construction,  but  aid  is  also  given  at  the  discretion  of  the  commissioner. 

Virginia. — The  governor  appoints  a  State  highway  commissioner  for  a  term  of  six 
years,  who  with  four  other  members,  appointed  from  the  different  colleges  in  the  State, 
constitute  the  highway  commission.  State  aid  is  given  both  in  the  form  of  convict 
labor  and  in  money  2  the  State  appropriation  being  one-half  the  cost.  County,  town- 
ship, and  road  district  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $2,557,500. 

Washington. — The  State  highway  board  is  composed  of  the  governor,  the  State  audi- 
tor, the  State  treasurer,  a  member  of  the  railroad  commission,  also  the  highway  com- 
missioner. State  aid  was  formerly  given  to  roads,  but  this  provision  has  been  repealed 
and  a  permanent  highway  fund  or  1  mill  tax  is  now  levied,  the  State  nominally 
and  the  county  indirectly  paying  the  total  cost  of  construction.  Assessment  districts, 
however,  may  pay  15  per  cent  of  the  coet.  County  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1, 
1912,  amount  to  $1,277,000. 

West  Virginia. — The  office  of  public  roads  was  established  in  1909  and  abolished  in 
1911.  West  Virginia  is  the  only  State  which  has  taken  a  backward  step  in  regard  to 
centralized  authority.  County,  township,  and  district  road  bonds  issued  prior  to 
January  1,  1912,  amount  to  $205,900. 

Wisconsin. — A  State  highway  commission  was  created  in  1911.  The  duties  are  prin- 
cipally advisory  and  supervisory.  The  commission  is  composed  of  five  members;  an 
engineer  of  roads  and  an  engineer  of  bridges  are  appointed.  The  State  pays  not  more 
than  one-third  of  the  cost  of  State  highways.  The  estimated  value  of  the  statute  labor 
tax  is  $375,000  annually  and  county  bonds  issued  prior  to  January  1,  1912,  amount  to 
$658,000. 

ADDITIONAL  BRIEFS  SUBMITTED  ON  ASPHALT. 

DENNY  &  WRIGHT, 
Rome,  Ga.,  December  23, 191t. 
Hon.  W.  G.  BRANTLEY, 

Member  of  Congress,   Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  BRANTLEY:  Being  one  who  is  vitally  interested  in  the  rapidly  growing  good 
roads  movement  throughout  our  whole  section  of  the  South,  and  having  been  inti- 
mately connected  with  street  improvements  as  county  official,  I  am  writing  you  in  the 
interest  of  a  tariff  reform  appertaining  to  natural  asphalts.  My  information  is  that 
at  present  there  is  no  duty  on  residuum  oils.  They  come  in  free  and  in  direct  com- 
petition with  natural  asphalt,  upon  which  there  is  a  duty  of  $3,  according  to  my 
information.  With  the  good  roads  improvement  matter  so  close  to  the  interest  of  our 
people,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  natural  asphalts  should  be  admitted  into  our  country 
on  a  parity  with  residuum  oils,  thereby  increasing  competition,  and  to  the  pronoun- 
cedly betterment  of  our  people.  Will  you  not  kindly  give  your  attention  to  this  mat- 


506  TABIPF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

ter,  and  see  whether  our  good  roads  improvement  can  not  be  advanced  by  relieving 
the  people  of  the  duty  on  these  natural  asphalts,  which  is  very  pronouncedly  better 
than  oil  residuum  products  that  can  be  furnished  by  the  Standard  Oil  Co.  and  other 
concerns? 

Thanking  you  for  your  kindly  interest  and  study  of  this  matter,  and  wishing  for 
you  a  merry  Christmas  and  a  glad  New  Year,  and  with  assurances  of  my  continued 
fealty  and  friendship  in  all  matters  that  may  appertain  to  your  success  and  advance- 
ment, believe  me, 

Sincerely,  your  friend,  R.  A.  DENNY. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS, 

Milwaukee,  January  2,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  It  has  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  undersigned  that  a  move- 
ment is  under  consideration  looking  to  the  removal  of  the  present  import  duties  on 
natural  lake  asphalts. 

As  commissioner  of  public  works  of  the  city  of  Milwaukee  I  feel  that  it  is  my  duty 
to  express  to  you  and  through  you  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  my  views  as 
to  the  desirability  of  removing  these  import  duties. 

I  have  been  more  or  less  directly  associated  with  the  use  of  asphaltic  materials  in 
connection  with  street  pavements  and  road  work  for  over  25  years  and  have  seen  and 
followed  closely  the  development  of  the  use  of  asphaltic  materials  in  this  country, 
comprising  both  the  natural  or  lake  asphalts  and  the  so-called  residuum  asphalts, 
and  acting  at  the  present  time  in  the  capacity  of  commissioner  of  public  works  of  the 
city  of  Milwaukee,  and  in  that  capacity  being  to  a  great  degree  responsible  for  the 
special  taxes  assessed  against  the  taxpayers  in  this  city  for  the  paving  of  the  roadways, 
I  feel  that  any  governmental  action  which  may  be  taken  looking  to  the  reduction  of 
the  costs  of  these  materials  will  be  a  boon  to  a  very  large  number  of  taxpayers  through- 
out the  entire  United  States,  and  will  be  particularly  appreciated  by  the  smaller 
taxpayers  paying  taxes  on  their  little  homes  throughout  a  vast  number  of  cities  in 
this  country. 

I  can  not  see  that  the  removal  of  these  import  duties  will  effect  an  undue  hardship 
upon  anyone,  as  it  is  my  personal  belief,  from  such  knowledge  as  I  have  acquired  in 
this  particular  material,  that  the  manufacturers  of  the  so-called  petroleum  residuum 
or  blown-oil  asphalts  are  simply  enabled  at  the  present  time  to  charge  and  secure  an 
undue  amount  of  profit  from  their  business. 

I  agree  with  many  of  the  experts  of  the  country  in  the  belief  that  the  natural  or 
lake  asphalts  produce  a  better  and  more  lasting  type  of  asphaltic  pavement  than  do 
the  pavements  based  on  the  residuum  products,  and  if  the  removal  of  the  import 
duties  from  these  natural  or  lake  asphalts  will  tend  to  decrease  the  price  of  that  mate- 
rial, this  decrease  being  reflected  in  the  cost  of  the  asphaltic  pavements  as  laid  on 
the  streets,  undoubted  benefits  will  accrue  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  United  States, 
on  whom  falls  the  burden  of  expense  in  these  paving  matters. 

This  letter  is  therefore  written  for  the  express  purpose  of  assuring  you  that  the 
undersigned,  in  view  of  whatever  degree  of  knowledge  he  has  been  able  to  obtain  on 
this  subject,  is  unqualifiedly  in  favor  of  the  removal  of  the  import  duties  upon  both 
the  crude  and  refined  asphaltic  materials  and  would  be  glad  to  go  into  this  matter 
more  fully  and  in  greater  detail  at  any  time  in  the  future  when  a  further  and  more 
complete  investigation  of  the  merits  of  the  subject  was  in  progress. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

FRED  G.  SIMMONS, 
Commissioner  of  Public  Works. 

SOUTHERN  ASPHALT  &  CONSTRUCTION  Co., 

Birmingham,  Ala.,  December  19,  1912. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  UNDERWOOD:  I  note  that  the  question  of  the  removal  of  the  duties 
on  asphalts  is  listed  for  discussion  before  your  committee  during  the  first  week  in 
January. 


SCHEDULE  B.  507 

PARAGRAPH  00— ASPHALTTJM. 

At  present  the  duty  is  $3  per  ton  on  refined  asphalt  and  $1.50  per  ton  on  crude 
asphalt.  These  duties  were  put  on  asphalts  in  1897  at  the  instigation  of  the  pro- 
ducers of  the  California  asphalts  and  were  kept  on  under  the  tariff  bill  of  1909  for  the 
benefit  of  and  at  the  request  of  producers  of  residual  asphalts,  which  are  by-products 
of  asphaltic  petroleums. 

I  think  the  duties  on  asphalts  should  be  removed,  for  the  following  reasons: 

Asphalt  has  come  into  general  use  as  a  material  for  the  successful  construction  of 
city  streets  and  the  better  classes  of  country  roads,  and  the  present  tariff  tax  means 
nothing  more  or  less  than  an  additional  tax  on  such  improvements.  This  additional 
tax  is  particularly  obnoxious  at  this  time,  when  there  is  such  a  widespread  movement 
for  the  betterment  of  streets  and  roads.  The  cost  of  pavements  in  which  asphalt  is 
used  would  naturally  be  decreased  if  the  tariff  is  removed,  as  the  imported  asphalts 
could  be  bought  at  a  lower  price,  and  this  would  have  an  effect  on  the  price  of  every 
form  of  pavement. 

The  tariff  on  imported  asphalts,  while  not  only  increasing  the  cost  of  such  asphalts, 
iindoubtedly  has  its  effect  also  upon  the  price  paid  for  the  by-product  asphalts,  so 
that  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  the  imported  asphalts  would  undoubtedly  enable 
cities  and  communities  to  secure  much  needed  highway  improvements  at  a  lower 
cost  than  now  prevails,  which  would  probably  mean  that  much  more  extensive  im- 
provement projects  would  be  taken  up  for  the  betterment  of  our  streets  and  country 
roads. 

As  you  know,  I  am  greatly  interested  in  the  paving  business,  my  company,  The 
Southern  Asphalt  &  Construction  Co.,  makes  a  specialty  of  laying  asphalt  pavements. 
As  we  use  the  imported  natural  lake  asphalts  we  are  vitally  interested  in  having  the 
duty  upon  the  importation  of  said  asphalts  removed. 

In  view  of  the  above,  I  trust  that  you  can  have  asphalts,  both  crude  and  refined, 
placed  on  the  free  list  when  the  time  comes  for  preparing  the  next  tariff  bill.  Any- 
thing you  may  be  able  to  do  along  this  line  will  oe  greatly  appreciated  by  us. 

With  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am, 

Your  friend,  EUGENE  FIES,  President. 

BRIEF  IN  SUPPORT  OP  SUGGESTION  THAT  ASPHALTUM  BE  PLACED  ON  THE  FREE  LIST 
SUBMITTED  BY  THE  HASTINGS  PAVEMENT  Co.   AND  OTHERS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  SI,  191S. 

The  Hastings  Pavement  Co.  respectfully  requests  that  the  duty  on  crude  and 
refined  asphaltum  be  removed  and  that  both  be  placed  upon  the  free  list. 

"Crude  asphalt"  is  the  material  just  as  it  comes  from  the  asphalt  lakes,  where 
centuries  of  exposure  to  atmospheric  conditions  has  caused  it  to  lose  many  of  its  lighter 
and  more  volatile  oils.  "Crude  asphalt"  from  Trinidad  Lake  contains  about  33  per 
centum  of  water;  and  the  so-called  process  of  "refining"  consists  merely  of  boiling 
out  that  33  per  centum  of  water.  In  other  words,  "refined"  asphalt  is  nothing  more 
than  the  "crude"  asphalt  with  the  water  boiled  out  by  the  operation  of  heat. 

The  Hastings  Pavement  Co.  is  and  for  30  years  has  been  engaged,  at  Hastings-on- 
Hudson,  N.  Y.,  in  the  manufacture  of  that  form  of  roadway  pavement  known  as 
asphalt  block  pavement.  Its  business  consists  of  making  the  asphalt  blocks  and  sel- 
ling them  to  municipalities  for  street  paving,  or  in  laying  the  pavement  itself  under 
contract  with  municipalities.  During  all  that  period  it  has  used  and  now  uses 
Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  exclusively  as  the  binding  material  in  its  asphalt  blocks. 
The  long  experience  of  the  company  in  the  use  of  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  has  demon- 
strated that  of  all  known  bituminous  materials  it  possesses  the  qualities  of  adhesive- 
ness and  cohesiveness  to  the  greatest  degree,  and  therefore  best  serves  the  purpose 
in  making  a  substantial  and  durable  form  of  pavement.  There  are  other  competing 
materials,  such  as  Venezuelan  asphalt,  Cuban  asphalt,  and  the  so-called  artificial 
asphalt  made  from  oil.  The  presence  of  a  high  degree  of  cementitiousness  in  the 
bitumen  is  particularly  desirable  in  the  form  of  pavement  made  by  the  Hastings 
Pavement  Co.  Briefly  stated,  the  asphalt  block  consists  of  asphaltic  cement  and 
crushed  stone,  compressed  under  high  pressure;  the  bitumen  contents  of  the  mixture 
constituting  the  cement  which  holds  the  materials  together. 

The  bitumen  in  the  Trinidad  Lake  asphalt  is,  in  the  opinion  of  this  company, 
superior  in  all  respects  to  that  of  any  other  asphalt,  whether  natural  or  artificial,  and 
for  that  reason  this  company  has  for  many  years  made  exclusive  use  of  this  particular 
variety  of  asphalt. 


508 

PARAGRAPH  OO— ASPHALTTJM. 

The  company  imports  its  asphalt  direct  from  Trinidad  in  what  is  called  the  crude 
state,  just  as  it  comes  from  the  Trinidad  Lake,  and,  at  the  company's  plant  at  Hastings- 
on-Hudson,  prepares  the  crude  asphalt  for  use  by  driving  from  it,  by  means  of  heat, 
the  33  per  centum  of  water  contained  in  the  crude  asphalt  as  imported.  In  other 
words,  the  company  has  to  thus  "refine"  its  own  asphalt,  the  so-called  process  of 
"refining"  causing  it  to  lose  33  per  centum  of  its  weight  before  being  suitable  for  use 
in  the  manufacture  of  an  asphaltic  cement. 

Until  1897  no  duty  was  levied  on  this  raw  material;  since  then  a  duty  of  $1.50  a 
ton  has  been  assessed  upon  the  "crude"  asphalt,  which  means  to  this  company  a 
duty  of  $2.25  per  ton  upon  that  part  of  the  material  which  is  available  for  use;  this 
company  paying  in  addition  thereto  the  labor  and  factory  cost.of  treating  the  material 
as  above  described. 

In  other  words,  in  order  to  prepare  its  raw  material  for  use  in  the  construction  of  a 
roadway  for  a  city  or  village,  it  has  to  import  the  crude  material,  and  pay  a  duty  thereon 
based  upon  a  bulk  which  ultimately  furnishes  but  67  per  centum  of  that  bulk  in  a 
condition  ready  for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  its  pavement. 

The  imposition  of  this  duty  not  only  does  not  protect  any  American  industry,  but 
in  fact  actually  operates  to  impose  an  onerous  and  unjust  burden  upon  a  long  estab- 
lished and  successful  industry,  as  well  as  to  impose  a  wholly  unnecessary  tax  upon 
the  construction  of  modern  roadways. 

There  does  not  exist  in  the  United  States  any  commercial  form  of  natural  asphalt 
that  competes  in  any  way  with  the  foreign  deposits.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  in 
the  process  of  refining  petroleum  oil,  having  an  asphaltic  base,  a  by-product  or  waste 
is  obtained,  which  is  sometimes  called  an  artificial  asphalt,  principally  because  it  can 
be  and  is  used  in  connection  with  the  construction  of  roadways.  That  is  to  say,  the 
oil  refiner  distills  his  oil  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  and  selling  the  light,  volatile 
oils  which  have  great  value;  to  obtain  them  is  the  purpose  of  the  refining  of  the  crude 
oil. 

What  is  finally  left  is  a  waste  which  may  be  used  in  some  way  as  an  asphalt  is  used; 
but  the  oil  is  not  refined  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  that  waste  and,  obviously,  the 
imposition  of  a  duty  upon  crude  or  refined  asphalt  was  not  intended  to  nor  does  it  in 
fact  furnish  protection  to  the  oil  refiner.  One  might  as  well  say  that  the  imposition 
of  a  duty  upon  timber  was  intended  to  furnish  protection  to  the  saw  mill  owner  in 
respect  to  the  sawdust  resulting  from  the  manufacture  of  the  timber  into  commercial 
forms  of  lumber. 

Moreover,  it  is  now  the  declared  policy  of  this  Government  to  allow  crude  oil  to 
enter  free  of  duty;  and  it  so  happens,  in  respect  to  Mexican  oil,  for  instance,  that  the 
importation  of  the  crude  oil  free  of  duty  also  allows  the  importation  without  duty 
of  BO  much  of  the  artificial  asphalt  as  is  contained  in  the  Mexican  crude  oil.  The 
result  is  that  the  refiners  of  Mexican  oil  actually  get,  as  incident  to  refining  that  oil, 
an  artificial  asphalt  which  has  paid  no  duty,  thereby  working  a  grievous  hardship 
upon  the  American  manufacturer  who  is  not  engaged  in  the  oil-refining  business  but 
who  brings  in  the  crude  natural  asphalt,  paying  duty  upon  it,  refining  it  here  with 
American  labor,  and  then  finding  himself  in  competition  with  the  oil  refiner  who  has 
avoided  all  duty. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  both  the  crude  and  so-called  "refined"  asphalt  should 
be  placed  upon  the  free  list. 

As  to  the  crude  asphalt,  it  is  typical  in  a  striking  degree  of  a  raw  material,  for  it 
is  invariably  a  natural  deposit  existing  in  consequence  of  the  lapse  of  ages  of  time  and 
the  slow  processes  of  chemical  change. 

It  is  taken  from  the  lake  by  the  simplest  possible  kind  of  labor,  that  of  plain  ordi- 
nary digging,  and  it  is  brought  to  the  United  States  in  such  a  condition  of  crudeness 
that  on  arrival  it  has  again  to  be  dug  out  of  the  hold  of  the  vessel. 

If  imported  as  so-called  "refined"  asphalt,  the  process  of  refining  is  in  fact  nothing 
more  than  boiling  out  of  it  the  water  which  it  contains  in  its  crude  state,  and  thus 
making  its  bulk  less  expensive  to  ship. 

But,  however  imported,  its  principal  use  is  an  important  and  essential  component 
of  modern  roads. 

A  customs  duty  upon  it  is,  therefore,  not  only  an  unjust  tax  upon  a  raw  material, 
but  is  in  fact  a  tax  upon  a  tax,  because  he  who  pays  for  the  modern  roadway  is  the 
taxpayer,  and  in  paying  his  tax  he  is  also  subjected  to  the  tax  levied  by  the  customs 
duty  on  the  asphalt  in  that  roadway. 


SCHEDULE  B.  509 

PARAGRAPH  90— ASPHALTTJM. 

We  are  authorized  to  say  that  the  following  companies,  likewise  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  asphalt  blocks,  join  with  this  company  in  urging  that  asphaltum  be 
placed  upon  the  free  list:  Asphalt  Block  Pavement  Co.,  Toledo,  Ohio;  Washington 
Asphalt  &  Tile  Co.,  Washington,  D.  C.:  New  Castle  Asphalt  Block  Co.,  New  Castle, 
Pa.;  Railway  Asphalt  Block  Co.  (portable  plants). 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

THE  HASTINGS  PAVEMENT  Co., 
HENRY  W.  RUDD,  of  Counsel. 


OFFICE  OP  MAYOR, 
Kansas  City,  Mo.,  December  28,  191t. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  I  respectfully  ask  that, 
in  your  revision  of  the  schedules  in  conjunction  with  tariff  revision  by  the  present 
House,  you  should  take  notice  of  the  effect  of  the  present  tariff  of  $1.50  per  ton  on 
crude  and  $3  per  ton  on  all  refined  asphalt  imported  into  the  United  States. 

It  is  undoubted  that  some  form  of  bituminous  binder  is  necessary  to  hold  good 
roads  together,  and  stone  is  the  natural  material  to  use.  With  asphalt  on  the  free 
list,  material  best  adapted  for  this  purpose  could  be  used  at  greatly  decreased  expense. 
Good  roads  and  pavements  are  costly  enough  without  the  addition  of  a  tariff  tax. 

The  existing  tariff  could  be  saved  by  the  communities  now  paying  it  in  the  form  of 
increased  costs,  which  could  be  put  into  much  needed  construction.  That  imported 
asphalts  would  be  reduced  in  price  if  the  tariff  were  removed  is  certain,  since  these 
products  are  now  much  higher  in  price  (owing  to  the  greater  cost  of  production) 
than  the  pretended  kinds  of  asphalt  made  from  blown  oil. 

Because  the  present  duty  on  asphalt  was  imposed  and  is  retained  solely  for  the 
benefit  of  the  far  western  producers  of  so-called  blown  oil,  which  is  a  by-proauct  from 
the  distillation  of  heavy  petroleum.  No  lake  of  natural  asphalt  is  found  in  the  United 
States,  so  that  no  duties  are  necessary  to  protect  this  product  or  the  labor  engaged  in 
its  production.  The  product  of  California  or  Texas  must  pay  heavy  freight  rates 
to  market  and  should  not  ask  Congress  to  maintain  a  tax  on  the  whole  country  in  order 
to  overcome  the  disadvantages  of  the  product's  location. 

Because,  in  the  face  of  an  increase  in  asphalt  imports  from  115,000  tons  in  1906  to 
168,000  tons  in  1911,  the  production  of  California  oil  asphalt  in  the  same  period 
increased  77,000  tons.  This  proves  that  the  California  industry  can  prosper  in  spite 
of  the  increasing  use  of  imported  asphalts.  All  that  the  Dingley  duties  have  done 
is  to  make  the  imported  product  cost  more  and  probably  enable  the  California  pro- 
ducers to  charge  more  than  they  would  for  oil  asphalts  had  no  duties  been  imposed. 

Because,  free  of  duty,  imported  asphalt  could  be  supplied  in  refined  form  by  direct 
shipment  to  all  eastern  and  southern  cities,  saving  heavy  rail  freight  charges.  New 
Orleans,  Mobile,  and  cities  similarly  situated,  and  Kansas  City  with  her  water  trans- 
portation, should  be  able  to  buy  asphalt  as  cheaply  as  New  York  can  buy  it. 

Because,  the  increasing  use  of  heavy  oils  for  road  treatment,  for  fuel,  and  other 
purposes,  is  resulting  in  constant  advances  in  the  price  of  these  materials.  This 
movement  will  be  retarded  if  imported  asphalt,  whether  crude  or  refined,  is  placed  on 
the  free  list  along  with  products  like  the  Mexican  oils,  which  are  admitted  free  under 
the  tariff  act  of  1909. 

Because,  the  increasing  use  of  the  Texas  and  California  blown  oil,  passing  under 
the  name  of  asphalt,  has  furnished  Kansas  City  and  all  this  western  country,  for  some 
years,  with  the  most  despicable  paving  products  that  has  ever  been  put  on  our  streets. 

This  suggestion  is  in  the  interests  of  all  the  road -making  authorities  in  this  country; 
in  the  interest  of  every  man  who  pays  a  paving  tax  in  Kansas  City  and  cities  similarly 
situated. 

Because  this  product,  whether  from  Trinidad  or  Bermudez,  in  Venezuela,  will 
make  better  paving,  more  durable,  worth  more  in  every  way,  than  that  made  with 
either  California  or  Texas  blown  oil. 

Yours,  respectfully,  HENRY  L.  Josr. 


510  TARTFF   HEABINQ8. 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

IOWA  STATE  HIGHWAY  COMMISSION, 

Ames,  Iowa,  January  21,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  understand  that  your  committee  will  consider,  among  other  matters, 
the  present  tariff  on  crude  and  refined  asphalts. 

It  seems  apparent  that  much  of  our  permanent  road  improvement  will  require 
some  form  of  asphalt  and  asphaltic  oil  in  construction  and  maintenance.  We  have 
even  had  in  a  few  instances,  under  special  conditions,  reasonably  successful  improve- 
ment by  means  of  the  application  of  asphaltic  oil  to  common  earth  roads  properly 
graded.  I  believe  that  the  whole  Mississippi  Valley  will  use  asphalt  in  various  forms 
in  road  improvement  during  the  next  few  years. 

I  would  suggest  that  you  consider  very  carefully  the  reduction  of  the  present  tariff 
to  reduce  the  cost  of  these  materials. 

Very  truly,  yours,  IOWA  HIGHWAY  COMMISSION, 

By  THOS.  H.  MACDONALD, 

Highway  Engineer. 


CITY  OF  MOBILE,  BOARD  OP  COMMISSIONERS, 

Mobile,  Ala.,  December  23,  1912. 
Mr.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  regard  to  the  duty  on  asphalts  which  is  to  come  before  your  com- 
mittee early  next  month:  Our  city  has  recently  let  contracts  for  paving  many  blocks 
of  our  streets  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  work  will  be  done  with  asphalt,  which 
material  meets  with  the  approval  of  our  board  and  when  well  laid  and  of  the  proper 
type  is  generally  satisfactory. 

The  present  duty  on  imported  asphalts,  which  appear  to  be  the  most  desirable  for 
street  pavements,  not  only  increases  the  price  we  must  pay  for  the  streets  and  roads 
improved  with  this  material  but  also  eeems  to  affect  the  price  of  all  paving  materials; 
and  this  curtails  the  amount  of  improvement  work  that  we  are  able  to  do. 

Mobile  has  shown  a  decided  increase  in  population  during  the  past  few  years  and 
we  anticipate  a  greatly  accelerated  growth  following  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal, 
which  will  make  necessary  the  paving  of  many  more  miles  of  our  streets.  If  Con- 
gress removes  the  duty  on  asphalts,  I  think  the  city  will  secure  a  material  reduction 
in  the  cost  of  its  street  improvement  work. 

Respectfully,  yours,  LAZ  SCHWARZ,  Mayor. 

BAUXITE. 

STATEMENT  OF  WINTHROP  C.  NEILSON,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING 
THE  REPUBLIC  MINING  &  MANUFACTURING  CO. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  represent  the  Republic  Mining  &  Manufacturing  Co. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  paragraph  do  you  refer  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Schedule  B,  paragraph  90,  the  bauxite  items. 

I  represent  the  oldest  and  one  of  the  largest  bauxite  mining  com- 
panies in  this  country.  We  have  been  mining  bauxite  since  1889. 
During  that  period  we  have  had  a  protective  duty  of  $1  a  ton  on 
bauxite  during  the  time  that  most  of  our  shipments  have  moved. 
During  that  period  we  have  shown  less  than  $1  a  ton  profit  on  our 
books.  I  simply  make  that  statement  to  show  the  benefit  the 
tariff  has  been  to  us,  and  I  want  to  add  that  the  present  arrange- 
ment of  SI  per  ton  is  bringing  in  a  nice  little  revenue  from  this 
industry. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  your  article  is  in  this  schedule,  is 
it — bauxite? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  it  is  in  the  schedule. 


SCHEDULE  B.  611 

PABAGBAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  think  it  is  in  the  metal  schedule. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  It  is  in  paragraph  90  of  Schedule  B. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well;  proceed. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  am  asking  for  the  retention  of  this  present  duty. 
I  have  prepared  a  brief  in  which  I  give  the  reasons  which  lead  us  to 
believe  this  duty  should  be  retained,  both  as  a  benefit  to  the  industry 
in  this  country  and  as  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  country.  As  long 
as  I  have  gone  into  the  matter  pretty  fully  in  the  brief,  I  will  not  say 
very  much  here  except  that  I  want  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  recently 
we  became  affiliated  with  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America.  That 
made  no  change  at  all  in  our  personnel  or  in  our  corporate  existence 
or  in  our  identity. 

We  are  still  selling  to  the  trade  as  we  did  before,  and  this  move 
was  made  largely  because  with  all  of  our  mining  operations  we  get 
into  some  hign-iron  bauxite,  which  the  regular  trade  we  work  with 
does  not  use,  and  the  Aluminum  Co.  can  make  use  of  this  grade  of 
ore,  and  it  gave  us  a  market  for  this  high-iron  bauxite. 

Within  the  last  day  I  have  heard  that  I  had  agreed  to  recommend 
the  removal  of  the  duty  on  one  of  the  different  grades  of  bauxite. 
I  simply  want  to  say  that  is  an  error,  because  I  have  always  advo- 
cated a  duty  on  all  the  bauxite.  The  different  grades  to  me  look  all 
alike,  and  a  ton  of  bauxite  is  a  ton  of  bauxite. 

I  would  like  to  file  this  brief,  to  appear  in  the  record.  If  there 
are  any  questions,  I  will  be  very  glad  to  endeavor  to  answer  them. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  have  you  to  say  as  to  the  rates  in  this  bill  and  as 
they  were  in  the  bill  last  year  ?  What  do  you  say  about  those  rates  ? 

Mr.  DALZELL.  What  was  that  rate  ? 

Mr.  HULL.  Fifteen  per  cent,  as  I  recall. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  understand  you  now.  I  think  if  we  have  that 
put  into  effect  it  will  cripple  us  tremendously.  We  can  ship  a  good 
deal  more  than  we  can  get  a  market  lor.  The  French  or  foreign 
materials  are  cutting  us  out  to  a  very  large  extent.  At  the  same 
time  we  have  developed  a  pretty  nice  business,  and  we  are  increasing 
it.  The  present  arrangement  is  all  we  can  hope  for. 

Mr.  HULL.  You  say  your  business  has  recently  become  allied  with 
the  American  Aluminum  Co.  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  with  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America. 

Mr.  HULL.  Your  bauxite  business  is  a  portion  of  the  business  of 
the  American  Aluminum  Co.  now? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  but  my  company,  the  Republic  Mining  &  Man- 
ufacturing Co.,  still  retains  its  individual  identity,  and  we  have  not 
changed  our  policy  in  any  way  at  all.  They  are  simply  taking  over 
part  of  their  materials  that  we  have  heretofore  thrown  away,  for  this 
aluminum  industry. 

Mr.  HULL.  The  import  price  of  this  raw  material  has  increased, 
has  it  not,  during  the  past  12  months? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  I  think  not.  I  think  the  import  price  of  this 
raw  material  is  as  it  has  been,  in  the  rough,  for  many  years. 

Mr.  HULL.  What  do  you  understand  it  to  be  now  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  understand  you  can  buy  this  foreign  material  for 
between  $8.25  and  $9,  laid  down  in  New  York. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Does  it  come  into  competition  with  your  own 
product  ? 


512  TAEUT  HEAKLffGS. 

PABAGBAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  I  thought  I  made  that  clear. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Excuse  me,  but  I  could  not  hear  what  you  were 
saying.  I  have  been  informed  that  French  bauxite  is  a  different 
material  from  that  which  is  found  in  the  Southern  States,  and  that 
there  is  no  real  competition  between  the  two.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  that  is  incorrect.  It  is  a  different  ore  in  a 
way.  It  has  about  two  parts  of  water  and  six  and  a  half  or  seven 
parts  of  alumina.  The  American  bauxites  have  practicaUy  three 
parts  of  water  and  only  six  parts  of  alumina,  five  and  a  half  to  six 
parts  of  alumina,  on  the  average.  They  have  a  natural  advantage 
of  a  little  bit  more  alumina,  which  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  I  have 
asked  for  the  retention  of  the  duty. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  uses  bauxite  as  its 
raw  material,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  still  it  is  in  favor  of  having  the  duty  retained 
upon  the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  presume  they  would  feel  that  way  about  it.  Thev 
have  their  own  mines  for  the  most  part,  and  we  only  ship  a  small 

Eart  of  our  total  to  them.  I  presume  they  are  perfectly  willing  to 
ave  the  duty  stay  on. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Where  are  the  mines  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  The  mines  are  in  Arkansas,  Georgia,  and  Tennes- 
see, and  very  large  mines  in  Alabama.  The^  are  ah1  in  the  South. 
They  are  all  a  very  great  distance  from  the  points  of  manufacture. 

Our  business  from  1889  to  the  present  time  is  really  a  white  alum 
trade  business.  We  ship  to  the  chemical  manufacturing  people, 
and  I  presume  this  statement  which  you  make  arises  from  the  fact 
that  we  have  not  done  very  much  business  with  the  other  people, 
the  people  that  would  use  the  high  iron  bauxites,  similar  to  the 
French  bauxites.  But  I  can  answer  that  by  saying  we  have  a  great 
deal  of  this  red  bauxite  lying  hi  the  ground  which  we  have  been 
unable  to  put  on  the  market. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  mean  the  red  bauxite  similar  to  the  French? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Well,  red  bauxite,  possibly  not  of  the  same  natural 
character;  a  little  inferior  in  alumina,  putting  them  to  a  little  bit 
more  disadvantage  than  the  other.  But  we  have  great  quantities 
of  red  bauxite  in  the  South,  which  we  have  never  been  able  to  mine 
and  market  at  all. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  was  not  here  when  you  began.  What  is  your  rela- 
tion to  the  bauxite  trade? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  My  relation  to  the  bauxite  trade  is  that  my  com- 
pany is  the  oldest  and  one  of  the  largest  mining  companies  in  the 
bauxite  industry. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  are  a  miner  of  bauxite? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  We  mine  and  sell  bauxite  to  the  trade. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  are  engaged  in  that  business  exclusively? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Exclusively,  and  have  been  since  1889. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Your  company  is  now  owned  or  controlled  by  the 
Aluminum  Co.  of  America? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  that  company  owns  or  controls  practically  all 
of  the  bauxite  beds  in  America,  does  it  not,  at  the  present  time  ? 


SCHEDULE   B.  513 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  you  are  mistaken  on  that  point. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  did  not  say  that  was  my  opinion.  I  am  asking 
you  about  it. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No.  My  opinion  is  they  do  not  control  anywhere 
near  all  the  bauxite. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  proportion  of  it  dp  they  control  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  That  really  is  a  question  which  I  do  not  like  to 
answer,  because  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  as  far  as  the  manu- 
facture of  aluminum  is  concerned,  enjoys  an  absolute  monopoly  in 
this  country,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  think  not.     I  am  not  posted  as  to  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  it  not  the  onty  concern  in  America  which  is  en- 
gaged in  the  manufacture  of  aluminum  articles  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  am  sorry  I  can  not  answer  you  on  that  point,  but 
I  really  know  very  little  about  the  aluminum  end  of  it. 

Mr.  PALMER.  It  does  own  or  control  a  sufficient  quantity  of  bauxite 
for  all  of  its  own  uses,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes,  I  think  it  does,  for  a  time  at  least ;  but  not  for 
an  indefinite  period. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Then  if  it  should  turn  out  to  be  true  that  it  has  a 
practical  monopoly  of  the  aluminum  business,  of  which  bauxite  is  the 
raw  material,  and  it  has  sufficient  of  this  raw  material  for  its  own 
uses — 

Mr.  NEILSON  (interposing).  For  a  certain  time. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Well,  for  a  long  period,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Not  for  a  very  long  period. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Then  it  practically  controls  all  the  bauxite  which  is 
used  in  the  aluminum  trade?  Did  you  ever  sell  to  anybody  else 
except  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  presume  that  we  have  not  shipped  over  2  or  3  per 
cent  of  our  tonnage  to  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America.  Even  now 
the  great  bulk  of  our  business  is  with  the  chemical  people. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  you  shipped  bauxite  to  any  other  concern  for 
the  manufacture  of  aluminum  than  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Has  anybody  else  sold  any  for  the  purpose  of  manu- 
facturing aluminum  articles  to  any  other  concern  than  the  Aluminum 
Co.  of  America  ? 

Mr.  XEILSON.  I  think  not.  I  think,  however,  that  some  French 
bauxite  has  been  imported  into  this  country  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Does  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  own  your  com- 
pany outright  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  They  do. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is,  they  own  the  stock  of  your  company? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  When  was  it  bought? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  It  was  bought  in  1909. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  they  been  engaged  lately  in  buying  the  control 
of  other  beauxite  companies? 

78959°— VOL  1—13 33 


514  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  None  that  I  know  of.  I  have  bought  one  or  two 
properties  myself,  which  I  would  have  bought  anyway  in  the  natural 
course  of  our  own  growth. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Were  those  you  bought  rival  concerns? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  they  were  from  individual  farmers. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  bought  those  for  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  bought  those  for  pur  regular  trade. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  big  a  concern  is  your  company? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  $100,000  capital. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  long  has  it  been  in  business  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Since  1882;  we  discovered  bauxite  first  along  about 
1886  or  1887,  and  made  the  first  shipments  in  1889. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Where  is  your  bauxite? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Our  bauxite  is  in  Arkansas,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and 
Tennessee. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  selling  out  to  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  did 
you  take  the  Aluminum  Co.'s  securities,  so  that  your  people  are  part 
of  that  company  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  not  a  dollar's  worth  of  it. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  got  cash,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  We  just  sell  to  them  this  by-product  we  make,  for  a 
regular  price,  just  as  though  they  were  another  customer. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  sell  a  by-product  to  them;  what  is  that? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  thought  I  made  that  clear  a  moment  ago,  that  in 
our  regular  mining  operations  for  the  chemical  trade  we  get  into 
bodies  of  bauxite  which  the  chemical  trade  can  not  use,  and  which 
the  aluminum  people  can  use.  One  of  the  inducements  which  led  us 
into  this  affiliation  with  them  was  the  fact  that  they  could  make  use 
of  this  by-product . 

Mr.  PALMER.  Then  as  I  understand  you  now,  the  furnishing  of 
bauxite  for  the  purposes  of  manufacturing  aluminum  is  simply  a  side 
issue  with  you  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  the  supply  of  bauxite  for  the  purpose  of  the 
alum  manufacture  is  your  main  business  ? 

Mr.  XEILSOX.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  which  is  engaged 
exclusively  in  the  business  of  manufacturing  aluminum  products,  has 
bought  you  out  and  now  controls  your  company? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes. 

Mr.    PALMER    (continuing).  And    other    companies    of    the    same 

IT-  i  7-1  /-] 

xYllJAl 

Mr.  NEILSOX.  I  do  not  know  about  that. 

Mr.  PALMER  (continuing).  Engaged  in  furnishing  bauxite  for  your 
trade  and  for  the  alum  trade  ? 

Mr-.  NEILSOX.  Yes.     We  have  raised  no  prices  since  we  began. 

Mr.  HARRISOX.  The  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  which  now 
controls  the  bauxite  fields  in  America,  desire  the  retention  of  this 
duty  on  bauxite  to  make  it  impossible  for  any  other  future  manu- 
facturer of  aluminum  to  compete  with  them,  is  that  the  case  ? 

Mr.  XEILSOX.  I  would  like  to  answer  that  by  saving,  even  if  they 
did  have  all  tlio  bauxite  in  the  country,  which  they  have  not  got 


SCHEDULE   B.  515 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

by  a  great  deal,  although  I  know  they  have  been  reported  as  having 
a  great  proportion  of  it,  even  if  they  owned  all  of  it,  they  could  stifi 
import  bauxite  from  France  and  pay  $1  duty  on  it,  and  lay  it  down 
in  New  York,  or  any  eastern  seaport,  for  two  or  three  dollars  a  ton 
less  than  they  could  mine  this  bauxite  in  the  South  and  lay  it  down 
at  the  seaports. 

Mr.  PALMER.  They  could  not  carry  it  very  far  inland  and  com- 
pete with  American  bauxite  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  that  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of  duty  on  bauxite 
would  simply  somewhat  extend  the  zone  of  competition  with  foreign 
bauxite,  bring  it  a  little  farther  in  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

Mr.  NEILSOX.  It  would  probably  bring  it  far  enough  in  to  put  us 
out  of  business.  There  is  already  so  much  bauxite  coming  into  the 
alum  manufacturers  of  this  country  from  foreign  countries  that  we 
have  to  rely  a  great  deal  on  our  western  and  northern  chemical 
companies'  plants. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  do  not  fear  about  always  having  a  customer  for 
your  product  now  that  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  has  bought  you 
and  owns  you;  they  will  buy  your  product,  will  they  not? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  they  probably  could  not  buy  their  products  at 
their  different  plants  nearly  as  readily  as  these  chemical  manufactur- 
ing concerns  can  buy  it.  We  would  lose  a  great  part  of  our  trade,  I 
expect,  and  I  might  also  say  that  the  kind  of  ore  wnich  they  use  is  not 
similar  to  the  kind  of  ore  which  the  chemical  people  use. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Let  us  assume  that  the  bauxite  is  used  by  the  alumi- 
num people  for  a  moment.  Their  plants  are  all  out  in  the  middle 
western  country,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yss. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Their  plant  is  at  East  St.  Louis? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  East  ot.  Louis,  111. 

Mr.  PALMER.  There  is  not  any  possibility  of  foreign  bauxite,  even 
with  a  duty  one-half  of  what  it  is  now,  successfully  competing  with 
southern  bauxite  at  East  St.  Louis,  is  there  ?  Would  not  the  freight 
rates  more  than  use  up  the  reduction  in  duty  if  we  cut  the  rate  on 
bauxite  one-half  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  We  ship  nothing  from  the  Georgia- Alabama  field  to 
East  St.  Louis  on  account  of  the  freight  rate;  therefore  I  assume  that 
would  hold.  It  would  almost  keep  the  foreign  ore  out  of  St.  Louis, 
no  matter  what  the  duty  is. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Where  is  your  plant,  in  Tennessee? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  We  have  mines  in  Georgia,  Alabama  and  Tennes- 
see. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  can  not  even  compete  from  Georgia  and  Ten- 
nessee at  East  St.  Louis  with  other  bauxites  nearer  to  East  St.  Louis; 
is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  We  can  not.  We  only  send  a  very  small  quantity 
of  this  by-product  material  to  East  St.  Louis. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Then  it  follows  that  foreign  bauxite,  as  far  as  it 
being  a  raw  material  for  aluminum  is  concerned,  would  not  be  a 
serious  competitor  at  East  St.  Louis,  would  it  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No. 


516  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  PALMER.  It  is  only  you  fear  foreign  competition  when  it  comos 
to  the  alum  trade  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  When  it  comes  to  the  alum  trade  and  when  it  comes 
to  the  future  field  of  other  bauxites  which  we  hope  some  day  to 
develop  and  use  these  red  bauxites  which  we  have. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Where  are  the  alum  plants  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Buffalo,  Chicago, 
and  a  small  one  in  Cincinnati.  But  mostly  they  are  in  the  large 
eastern  cities. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  you  named  them  all  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  have  named  every  important  one.  Did  I  say 
Buffalo  ? 

Mr.  PALMER.  Yes.  As  far  as  Buffalo,  Cincinnati,  and  Chicago  are 
concerned  foreign  bauxite  could  not  compete  with  the  American 
bauxite,  could  it  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  It  has  gone  as  far  as  Buffalo  in  some  instances. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Under  the  present  rates  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  but  not  in  large  quantities,  however.  It  stops 
mostly  now  at  the  seacoast.  Whereas  they  used  to  send  all  the 
chemical  companies'  ore  to  these  seaport  towns,  they  are  now  getting 
some  of  the  French  ore  and  still  using  practically  75  per  cent  or  more 
of  their  product  from  Georgia. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Your  proposition  here  now  is  that  the  present  bauxite 
duty  permits  some  competition  at  the  Atlantic  seaboard  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  It  does. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  allows  you  to  have  a  monopoly  inland?  You 
want  to  destroy  that  competition  on  the  seaboard  and  have  an  abso- 
lute monopoly  all  over  the  United  States ;  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;   I  would  not  put  it  just  that  way. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  expect  you  would  not,  but  that  is  the  proper  way 
of  putting  it,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  would  like  to  ship  our  material  in  a  little  larger 
quantity  to  these  seaboard  towns,  but  we  are  very  willing  to  let  the 
present  arrangement  stand  as  it  is. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  are  willing  to  leave  it  as  it  is  at  present? 

Mr.  XEILSON.  Yes.  We  want  the  duty  retained  as  at  present, 
which  lets  us  ship  practically  150,000  or  160,000  tons  of  ore  per 
annum  against  150,000  tons  of  ore  coming  in. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  retention  of  the  duty  at  present  is  in  the  interest 
of  a  decreased  competition  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard.  You  want 
to  prevent  competition  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  ? 

Mr.  XEILSOX.  We  would  like  to  prevent  further  competition.  If 
it  goes  a  little  further  we  are  ruined  in  this  country.  That  is,  we  feel 
if  the  duty  is  taken  off  the  Frenchman  would  have  all  of  those  eastern 
seaboard  cities. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Can  not  he  get  them  all  now  ?  If  he  can  get  one 
can  not  he  get  all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  XKII.SOX.   No. 

Mr.  PALMKK.   Why  not' 

Mr.  NKII.SOX.  Because  the  SI  duty  gives  us  just  that  balance  of 
power  which  lets  us  ship  enough  further  in  to  keep  us  going. 


SCHEDULE  B.  517 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  moan  the  $1  duty  makes  the  French  article  and 
your  article  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  at  about  the  same  price,  so 
that  now  and  then  you  can  get  customers;  is  that  it? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No;  we  more  than  now  and  then  get  customers. 
I  suppose  we  control  75  or  80  per  cent  of  this  seaboard  custom. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  control  75  or  80  per  cent  of  the  seaboard  towns 
and  all  of  the  inland  business  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Practically. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  you  want  to  continue  that  or  get  more  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Yes;  that  is  the  idea. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  not  know  that  there  has  been,  recently,  a 
storm  of  popular  opinion  in  this  country  in  favor  of  a  reduction  of 
duties  to  permit  some  competition  in  this  country? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  When  you  consider  there  is  already  a  good  deal  of 
competition,  when  the  imports  are  coming  in  as  fast  as  they  are,  and 
when  our  industry  is  held  down  to  the  point  it  is  held  down — 

Mr.  PALMER.  If  you  ask  me  my  opinion,  I  would  say  that  any  con- 
cern which  has  a  monopoly  of  all  the  country  in  the  United  States 
away  from  the  seacoast  and  is  able  to  get  80  per  cent  of  the  business 
in  the  seaboard  towns  does  not  present  a  condition  which  I  would  call 
competitive. 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Now,  we  not  only  have  the  Frenchman  to  compete 
with  in  the  seaboard  towns,  but  whenever  we  sell  a  pound  of  bauxite 
to  anybody  we  have  a  good  many  local  people  to  compete  with. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  they  also  concerns  which  are  owned  by  the 
Aluminum  Co.  of  America? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  Not  that  I  know  of.  Most  of  these  concerns  I  am 
sure  are  not  owned  by  them. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  far  as  aluminum  is  concerned  there  is  no  compe- 
tition, because  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  buys  from  its  own 
people  entirely,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  am  not  really  posted  on  the  aluminum  end  of  it. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  you  refine  any  bauxite  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  No,  sir;  we  do  nothing  but  mine  the  raw  material 
and  sell  it  to  the  trade. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  probably  are  aware  that  at  the  last  session  of 
this  Congress  a  bill  passed  the  House  reducing  the  duties  on  refined 
bauxite  from  24  per  cent  to  15  per  cent? 

Mr.  HULL.  Ten  per  cent.     I  was  in  error. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  view  of  that  proposed  reduction  of  duty  in  the 
refined  article,  do  you  not  believe  a  reduction  in  duty  on  the  raw 
material  would  be  only  fair  ? 

Mr.  NEILSON.  I  think  that  that  is  a  little  beyond  the  mining  com- 
panies' scope.  If  the  duties  are  lowered  we  know  that  we  will  not 
have  as  much  market  for  our  ore  as  we  have  had  in  the  past.  We 
do  know  that  our  market  has  only  been  a  part  of  what  we  would  like 
to  have  it.  Moreover,  the  way  it  has  been  has  not  enabled  us  to  go 
very  deep  into  the  ground  for  these  bauxites.  We  could  have  done 
better  mining  if  we  had  had  a  little  bit  more  chance  to  go  deeper  into 
the  ground.  In  other  words,  when  we  reach  the  point  that  we  have 
got  to  stop,  we  leave  a  good  deal  of  ore  underneath  us.  We  simply 
can  not  afford  to  take  it  put. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all. 


518  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  REPUBLIC  MINING  &  MANUFACTURING  Co.,  A  CORPORATION 
ORGANIZED  UNDER  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  STATE  OF  GEORGIA. 

BAUXITE — SCHEDULE  B,  PARAGRAPH  90. 

To  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Sixty-second 

Congress: 

There  is  at  present  a  duty  of  $1  per  ton  on  bauxite.  We  respectfully  ask  that  this 
duty  of  $1  per  ton  be  allowed  to  stand.. 

The  Republic  Mining  &  Manufacturing  Co.  is  the  oldest  bauxite  mining  company  in 
this  country.  Chartered  in  1882  for  the  purpose  of  developing  mineral  properties  in 
the  South,  it  made  the  first  discovery  of  American  bauxite  shortly  thereafter,  and  it 
made  the  first  shipment  of  American  bauxite  in  the  year  1889.  Since  the  beginning 
of  the  industry  in  that  year  until  the  present  time  we  have  never  stopped  mining 
bauxite.  There  have  been  many  companies  and  there  have  been  many  individuals 
operating  during  this  period,  but  statistics  show  that  the  Republic  Mining  &  Manu- 
facturing Co.  has  mined  and  shipped  practically  25  per  cent  of  all  the  bauxite  which 
this  country  has  produced.  The  largest  part  of  our  business  has  been  done  with  the 
various  chemical  companies  who  manufacture  sulphate  of  alumina,  better  known  as 
alum.  We  have  sold  small  quantities  to  the  other  users  of  bauxite,  but  our  business 
has  been,  primarily,  an  alum  business.  And  the  profits  on  our  business  for  23  years 
have  averaged  less  than  $1  per  ton.  This  statement  is  made  to  show  our  actual  need 
for  the  duty  during  this  period,  and  we  believe  that  other  American  producers  have 
needed  this  protection  fully  as  much  as  ourselves. 

Bauxite  is  a  hydrate  of  alumina,  containing  oxide  of  aluminum,  water,  and  impuri- 
ties. It  is  practically  a  clay  in  which  the  oxide  of  aluminum  has  replaced  a  part  of 
the  silica.  Commercial  American  bauxite  contains  approximately  55  per  cent  oxide 
of  aluminum,  30  per  cent  of  water,  and  15  per  cent  impurities.  It  is,  properly  speak- 
ing, a  trihydrate  of  alumina,  as  there  are  about  3  parts  out  of  10  of  water  of  combination. 

The  bauxites  of  the  United  States  are  found  in  the  State  of  Arkansas,  west  of  Little 
Rock;  also  in  the  States  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Tennessee.  The  Georgia-Alabama- 
Tennessee  bauxite  field  runs  in  a  northeast-southwesterly  direction  from  a  point  near 
Bristol,  Tenn.,  down  through  Chattanooga,  into  Georgia,  through  Rome,  and  on  into 
northeastern  Alabama.  Also  a  territory  of  considerable  importance  in  Georgia,  south- 
east of  Macon,  has  been  opened  up  within  the  past  few  years.  It  will  be  noted  that 
all  of  these  American  mines  lie  at  great  distances  from  the  centers  of  chemical  manu- 
facturing, which  are,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  large  eastern  cities,  and  in  Buffalo, 
Niagara  Falls,  and  Chicago. 

Since  its  small  beginning  in  the  year  1889,  the  industry  has  shown  steady  growth 
and  development.  To-day  practically  1,000  men  are  employed  regularly;  large  num- 
bers of  farmers  also  find  temporary  employment  in  the  mines  after  crops  are  laid  by. 
According  to  statistics  published  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  there  have 
been  mined  and  shipped  in  the  United  States,  from  the  beginning  of  the  industry 
until  the  close  of  1911,  some  1,025,594  tons.  Some  85  per  cent  of  this  total  shipment 
moved  while  there  was  a  protective  duty  of  $1  per  ton  on  foreign  bauxite.  Had  it  not 
been  for  this  duty  the  business  would  undoubtedly  have  been  much  smaller  than  it 
lias  been.  Even  with  the  duty  in  force,  great  quantities  of  French  bauxite  have  been 
coming  into  this  country,  and  only  the  protective  duty  has  enabled  the  American 
industry  to  reach  its  present  stage  of  development.  According  to  statistics  issued  by 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey  15,669  tons  were  imported  in  the  year  1910,  and 
43,222  tons  were  imported  in  the  year  1911.  American  production,  according  to  the 
same  authority,  increased  from  148,932  tons  in  the  year  1910  to  only  155,618  tons  in 
the  year  1911.  Were  the  duty  removed,  or  even  lowered,  American  production 
figures  would  undoubtedly  recede  and  the  import  figures  would  correspondingly 
increase.  Therefore  we  ask  for  the  retention  of  the  present  duty. 

American  bauxites  all  lie  inland,  and  the  rail  freight  rate  to  the  point  of  manufac- 
ture averages  not  far  under  so  per  ton.  Include  the  rate  from  the  Arkansas  mines 
to  the  Eastern  chemical  plants,  and  the  average  rate  is  considerably  above  $5  per  ton. 
Against  this,  the  bauxites  of  France  have  a  water  rate  of  practically  S2.  In  some 
instances,  cargoes  for  ballast  have  been  brought  over  for  6  shillings.  Moreover,  the 
French  mines  are  all  very  near  seaport.  The  deposits  lie  along  the  coast  from  Mar- 
seille to  Nice,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  few  miles  only  to  reach  a  port,  like  Cette,  Mar- 
seille, Toulon,  or  St.  Raphael.  This  freight  rate 'difference  in  favor  of  French  ore 
would  alone  seem  to  justify  the  retention  of  the  present  duty. 

It  has  been  shown  above  that  domestic  bauxite  is  a  trihydrate,  containing  some 
three  parts  of  combined  water.  Foreign  bauxite,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  duohydrate, 


SCHEDULE  B.  519 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

containing  only  about  two  parts  out  of  ten  of  combined  water,  with  the  alumina  con- 
tent replacing  the  third  part  of  water.  This  approximate  10  per  cent  increase  in  the 
oxide  of  aluminum  in  foreign  ore  is  a  natural  advantage  that  we  can  not  overcome. 

A  comparison  of  the  mines  also  favors  the  foreign  bauxites.  The  American  mines, 
for  the  most  part,  are  heavily  overburdened  and  the  ore  lies  deep  in  the  ground. 
Surrounded  by  clay  and  cut  by  clay  barriers,  we  can  do  very  little  underground 
work.  Our  open  quarrying  is  followed  by  great  slides,  and  as  we  frequently  take  out 
ore  from  a  depth  of  100  feet  even  a  light  rain  causes  serious  delay  and  cost.  The 
French  ores  lie  mostly  in  huge  bluffs,  beautifully  situated  for  mining.  Where  the  ore 
dips  it  is  for  the  most  part  surrounded  by  rock,  so  that  regular  underground  mining 
can  be  carried  on  with  safety. 

Again,  we  believe  that  French  labor  for  this  class  of  work  does  not  average  much, 
if  any,  above  80  cents  per  day.  We  have  had  two  members  of  our  company  make  a 
personal  study  of  this  point  during  several  trips  to  the  French  mines.  In  the  United 
States  the  average  labor  cost  is  a  full  $1.60  per  day.  And  here  is  a  case  where  labor 
costs  can  properly  be  compared  for  the  total  cost  of  putting  bauxite  on  to  cars  is  almost 
a  hand -lab  or  cost.  A  steam  shovel  here  can  rarely  be  used  on  account  of  the  depths 
of  the  deposits,  and  on  account  of  the  clay  pockets  and  different  grades  being  badly 
mixed.  French  ore  runs  more  uniform  and  much  more  free  of  clay  and  grit.  With 
us,  the  pick  and  the  shovel  must  be  relied  on,  followed  by  hand  sorting,  frequently 
hand  passing  into  washers,  almost  always  hand  passing  into  cylinder  driers,  and 
hauled  by  wagon  to  the  railroad.  Royalty  charges  and  fuel  and  depreciation  on 
hoisting  and  drying  machinery  constitute  only  a  small  part  of  the  cost — labor  con- 
stitutes far  more  than  all  the  other  costs. 

Imports  of  bauxite  have  so  far  been  chiefly  from  France.  Italy  and  Hungary  are 
likewise  great  bauxite-producing  countries,  each  with  low-priced  labor  and  plenty  of 
it.  Italy  and  Hungary  will  send  in  bauxite,  and  the  tonnage  from  France  will  in- 
crease greatly  if  the  present  duty  is  removed. 

Under  the  present  arrangement  of  $1  per  ton  import  duty  in  the  year  1911  some 
$43,222  in  duty  was  realized  from  an  industry  which  used  some  200,000  tons  of  bauxite 
in  that  year.  We  presume  this  ratio  fully  held  in  the  year  just  past,  and  if  the  present 
duty  is  undisturbed  there  will  still  be  at  least  an  equivalent  proportion  of  American 
consumption  yielding  duty. 

On  account  of  the  foreign  ore  be'ng  by  nature  higher  in  oxide  of  aluminum  than 
American  ore;  on  account  of  foreign  labor  costing  less  than  American  labor;  on  account 
of  the  French  deposits  being  better  situated  for  low-cost  mining  and  close  to  seaport; 
on  account  of  the  foreign  ore  carrying  a  low-water  freight  rate  against  our  high  rail 
freight  rate;  and  on  account  of  the  present  duty  making  large  returns  on  the  already 
established  import  business,  we  trust  that  our  request  for  a  retention  of  the  present 
duty  of  $1  per  ton  on  bauxite  will  be  found  to  be  in  order. 

WINTHROP  C.  NEILSON,  President, 
1111  Harrison  Building,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

JANUARY  6, 1913. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MERRIMAC  CHEMICAL  CO. 

JANUARY  1,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  On  behalf  of  the  Merrimac  Chemical  Co.  I  beg  to  submit  the  following 
brief  for  the  consideration  of  your  committee  in  connection  with  its  investigations 
regarding  the  tariff. 

BAUXITE. 

Under  section  90  of  ihe  act  of  1909  bauxite  is  assessed  a  duty  of  $1  a  ton,  the 
language  of  the  act  being  as  follows:  "Bauxite,  or  beauxite,  crude,  not  refined  or 
otherwise  advanced  in  condition  from  its  natural  state,  SI  per  ton."  *  *  * 

Bauxite  is  distinctly  a  raw  material,  and  it  is  our  contention  that  it  should  be  placed 
on  the  "free  list." 

There  are  two  distinct  kinds  of  bauxite,  one  of  the  character  of  the  American 
bauxite,  commonly  known  as  "white"  bauxite,  and  containing  less  than  10  per  cent 
of  iron  oxide,  and  the  other  known  as  "red"  bauxite,  containing  more  than  10  per 
cent  of  iron  oxide,  and  mined  almost  exclusively  in  foreign  countries,  particularly 
France. 


520  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— BAUXITE. 

The  "white",  or  American,  bauxite  contains  47  per  cent  to  57  per  cent  alumina, 
iron  oxide  not  exceeding  10  per  cent,  and  from  6  per  cent  to  20  per  cent  of  silica 
The  better  qualities  of  this  bauxite  are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  sulphate  of  alu- 
mina, in  title  manufacture  of  which  a  high  percentage  of  silica  is  not  objectionable, 
while  a  high  percentage  of  iron  is  very  detrimental. 

The  ordinary  "red"  bauxite  contains  58  per  cent  to  60  per  cent  of  ahimina.  18  per 
cent  to  22  per  cent  iron  oxide,  and  2  per  cent  to  4  per  cent  silica.  This  "red  "  bauxite 
is  used  principally  in  the  production  of  alumina,  which  is  the  principal  source  of  alu- 
minum used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  metal  aluminum.  In  the  refining  process 
of  this  "red"  bauxite  "the  high  percentage  of  iron  is  not  objectionable,  while  a  high 
percentage  of  silica  contents  is  almost  fatal  to  economical  manufacture.  Thus  it  is 
apparent  that  the  American,  or  "white, "  bauxite  and  the  "red"  bauxite,  which  con- 
stitutes the  greater  portion  of  the  foreign  importation,  being  distinct  in  their  character 
and  purpose,  are  not  in  serious  competition  with  each  other. 

An  effort  was  made  at  the  last  tariff  revision  in  1908-9  to  have  the  duty  on  bauxite 
increased  from  $1  a  ton  to  $2  a  ton  on  the  ground  that  the  American  mines  could  not 
compete  with  the  foreign  mines. 

We  do  not  believe  that  importations  of  bauxite  interfere  in  the  slightest  with  our 
American  mines,  nor  do  we  believe  that  the  output  of  our  American  mines  would  be 
affected  if  bauxite  were  placed  on  the  free  list.  The  following  are  our  reasons  for  this 
opinion: 

(1)  As  already  stated,  the  "red"  bauxite,  which  constitutes  the  bulk  of  the  foreign 
importation,  is  used  for  different  purposes  than  the  "white"  bauxite,  which  is  mined 
in  this  country    The  only  important  exception  to  this  statement  that  we  know  of  is 
the  Arkansas  bauxite  used  by  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America  in  their  works  near 
St.  Louis.     The  Arkansas  mines  in  question  are,  we  understand,  owned  and  operated 
by  the  Aluminum  Co.  of  America,  and  it  is  most  improbable  that  their  operations 
would  be  in  the  least  curtailed  by  the  removal  of  the  duty  because  the  inland  freight 
on  the  imported  ore  would  be  prohibitive. 

(2)  Our  American  mines  have  shown  a  steadily  increasing  output,  and  there  is  no 
indiciation  that  the  development  of  these  mines  has  been  or  is  likely  to  be  retarded  by 
the  importation  of  foreign  bauxite. 

According  to  the  Mineral  Industry  for  1911,  which  is  the  most  accurate  and 
official  estimate  of  mineral  productions  published  in  the  United  States,  there  were 
produced  in  the  United  States  in  1911,  155,618  tons  of  bauxite.  This  is  somewhat 
larger  than  the  output  in  1910  and  1909  and  three  times  the  output  in  1908.  In  1911 
there  were  imported  into  this  country  43,222  tons  of  bauxite,  but  the  major  portion 
of  this  importation  was  "red"  bauxite,  which,  as  already  explained,  is  not  really 
in  conflict  with  our  American  ore. 

It  is  submitted  that,  when  due  consideration  is  given  to  the  fact  that  the  American 
output  of  bauxite  has  tripled  since  1908,  and  when  it  is  considered  how  small  has  been 
the  importation  of  "white"  bauxite  under  the  present  duty,  it  will  be  apparent  that 
our  American  producers  of  bauxite  do  not  require  the  protection  of  this  $1  duty. 

CONCLUSION. 

To  place  bauxite  on  the  free  list  would  surely  stimulate  the  aluminum  industry, 
and  would  not,  in  our  judgment,  seriously  affect  our  American  mine  owners,  because, 
as  already  explained,  the  American  markets  for  the  imported  and  domestic  ore  are  to 
a  large  extent  separate  and  distinct. 

Furthermore,  should  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  maintain  a  duty  on  our  American 
bauxite,  a  distinction  may  be  made  between  the  "red"  and  the  "white"  bauxite, 
and  the  duty  removed  on  the  former.  This  may  be  effected  by  providing  that  bauxite 
containing  in  excess  of  10  per  cent  of  iron  (FeoOg1)  shall  be  entered  free,  and  bauxite 
containing  less  than  10  per  cent  iron  shall  pay  a  duty  of  $1  a  ton. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  SALT   MANUFACTURING  CO., 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  December  2,  1912. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD. 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  \Ye  have  the  honor  to  present  herewith  a  brief  of  facts  in  the  matter  of 
the  crude  article  bauxite,  which  is  now  subject  to  a  duty  of  $1  per  2,240  pounds. 


SCHEDULE  B.  521 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

Bauxite  is  in  Schedule  B,  paragraph  No.  90,  act  of  August  5,  1909. 

The  importation  this  year  will  amount  to  about  30,000  tons.  The  consumption  in 
the  United  States  is  estimated  at  150,000  tons  during  1912. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  it  be  transferred  to  the  free  list,  where  for  many  years  it 
was  incorporated.  The  article  imported  does  not  come  in  competition  with  the 
domestic  article,  by  reason  of  its  wide  difference  in  composition.  The  foreign  article 
contains  60  per  cent  of  alumina  and  over  20  per  cent  of  iron,  whereas  the  domestic 
article  contains  from  50  to  55  per  cent  alumina  and  is  very  low  in  iron.  On  account 
of  the  iron  the  foreign  red  bauxite  is  not  adapted  for  making  alum  direct,  whereas  the 
domestic  article  is  particularly  so;  therefore  the  foreign  does  not  compete,  as  stated. 

The  selling  price  of  domestic  bauxite  is  about  $6  per  ton  at  the  mines,  compared 
with  $3.60  per  ton  for  foreign  at  shipping  point  in  Europe.  The  importation  com- 
prises only  about  20  per  cent  of  the  total  bauxite  consumed  in  the  United  States. 

As  the  bauxite  is  distinctively  a  raw  material  of  the  crudest  character  involving  a 
minimum  of  labor,  we  submit  that  it  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 
Yours,  truly, 

PENNSYLVANIA  SALT  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
THEODORE  ARMSTRONG,  President. 

RESOLUTIONS   OF  BENTON  (ARK.)  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE. 

Whereas  the  largest  deposit  of  bauxite  in  America  is  situated  in  Arkansas,  near  the 
city  of  Ben  ton;  and 

Whereas  three  corporations  are  engaged  in  the  mining  and  shipping  of  this  bauxite; 
and 

Whereas  these  companies  have  made  very  heavy  investments  in  mining  plants  and 
building  railroads  and  equipment  for  mining  this  bauxite;  and 

Whereas  the  pay  rolls  of  these  companies  amount  to  from  $15,000  to  $20,000  a  month, 
and  that  this  money  is  paid  to  the  laborers,  who  spend  it  in  this  community;  and 

Whereas  one  of  these  mining  plants  has  built  the  second  largest  town  in  this  county, 
some  miles  of  first-class  public  roads,  erected  a  $12,000  schoolhouse  for  the  benefit 
of  the  children  of  the  community,  a,  hospital  costing  over  $6,000,  a  free  bathhouse 
for  the  use  of  their  employees;  all  this,  where  a  few  years  ago  there  was  a  wilderness; 
and 

Whereas  the  existing  tariff  under  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill  enables  foreign  bauxite  and 
aluminum  to  be  shipped  into  America  in  free  competition  with  the  American  man- 
ufactured articles;  and 

Whereas  should  the  tariff  on  bauxite  and  aluminum  as  contemplated  by  the  Under- 
wood bill  now  before  Congress  be  passed,  in  our  judgment  would  close  down  this 
the  largest  industry  in  our  county:  Therefore  be  it 
Resolved,  That  the  Benton  Chamber  of  Commerce,  of  the  city  of  Benton,  Ark.,  in 

chambers  assembled,  pray  that  you  use  your  influence  to  prevent  the  tariff  being 

removed  on  bauxite,  aluminum,  and  alumina  as  contemplated  by  the  Underwood 

bill;  And  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  organization  send  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  to 

each  of  our  representatives  in  Congress. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  board  of  directors  of 

the  chamber  of  commerce  on  the  30th  day  of  January,  1913. 

M.  F.  SCOTT,  President. 

CHINA  CLAY. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  RICHARDSON,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 
JOHN  RICHARDSON  CO.,  OF  BOSTON,  MASS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  the  John  Richardson  Co. 
The  committee  has  assigned  to  you,  Mr.  Richardson,  10  minutes. 
Please  give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer. 
Mr.  RICHARDSON.  John  Richardson,  of  Boston. 
Mr.  DIXON.  What  section  of  the  bill  will  you  speak  about? 
Mr.  RICHARDSON.  Paragraph  90. 


522  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  want  the  duty  on  china  clay 
removed.  I  emphasize  two  points: 

First,  the  damage  done  by  the  duty  to  the  great  paper  industry, 
employing  over  65,000  men. 

Second,  the  comparatively  insignificant  damage  by  removal  of  the 
duty  to  the  southern  clay  industry. 

As  to  the  first  point,  paper  making  is  among  the  largest  industries 
of  the  United  States.  Our  makers  of  the  better  grades  of  paper  must 
have  English  clay.  The  duty  on  this  raw  material  is  now  over  36 
per  cent.  From  this  tax  the  United  States  Government  receives 
annually  a  revenue  of  over  half  a  million  dollars.  That  revenue  is  in 
the  end  paid  by  the  paper  makers.  Canada's  facilities  for  the  manu- 
facture of  paper  excel  those  of  the  United  States.  China  clay  is 
admitted  free  into  Canada;  her  paper  comes  here  free.  Already  a 
number  of  American  paper  makers  have  bought  land  there.  Each 
dollar  collected  as  duty  means  a  gain  of  $1  to  the  paper  maker  who 
goes  to  Canada. 

Now,  for  the  second  point,  the  comparatively  insignificant  damage 
to  the  domestic  clay  industry.  The  total  value  of  domestic  paper 
clay  produced  in  1909  was  less  than  $400,000.  Under  1,500  men 
were  employed.  From  1905  to  1910,  in  spite  of  the  duty,  the  increase 
of  English  clay  imported  over  the  increase  of  domestic  clay  produced 
was  938  per  cent. 

This  duty,  which  is  borne  by  the  paper  makers,  of  over  half  a 
million  dollars  a  year  protects  an  industry  with  a  total  annual  output 
of  less  than  $400,000  and  employing  under  1,500  men. 

I  am  ready  for  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  gentlemen  of  the  committee  desire  to  ask  Mr. 
Richardson  any  questions  ? 

That  is  all. 

PETITION  TO  REMOVE  THE  DUTY  o\  CHINA  CLAY.  OR  KAOLIN. 

{Brief  of  John  Richardson  Co.] 
STATEMENT    OF   FACTS. 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS. 

House  of  Representatives,  Sixty-second  Congress: 

In  1908  the  John  Richardson  Co.  was  represented  at  the  hearings  before  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  on  a  petition  similar  in  its  purport  to  this  brief,  namely,  the 
removal  of  the  duty  on  china  clay,  or  kaolin.  Xow.  as  then,  your  petitioner  is  acting 
at  the  suggestion  of  several  paper  makers.  In  1908  the  petition  was  dismissed  after 
a  rather  brief  hearing.  Since  1908  the  new  Canadian  tariff  has  been  put  into  effect, 
thereby  admitting  from  Canada  one  of  the  finished  products  of  china  clay,  paper,  free 
of  duty. 

This  brief  deals  first  with  the  subject  in  the  light  of  the  new  Canadian  tariff,  and, 
second,  attempts  to  explain,  more  fully  than  was  possible  at  the  hearings  before  the 
committee,  the  effect  of  the  present  duty  on  china  clay. 

EXPLANATION    OF    TERMS. 

China  clay  and  kaolin  are  different  names  for  the  same  article,  and  this  article  is  a 
raw  material  used  in  the  manufacture  of  paper,  pottery,  bleaching,  and  ultramarine. 
In  this  brief  the  term  china  clay  will  be  used,  except  iri  the  case  of  the  North  Carolina 
clay,  where  by  force  of  custom  the  name  kaolin  has  always  been  applied  to  the  clay 
there. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  oil  imported  clay  is  really  of  one  kind,  there  are  many 
different  grades  of  cost.  This  is  due  to  the  facts  which  will  be  explained  later. 


SCHEDULE   B.  523 

PARAGRAPH  00— CHINA  CLAY. 

THE   DIFFERENT  COSTS   OF   ENGLISH   CLAY. 

The  cost  of  English  clay  in  hulk  f.  o.  b.  Cornwall,  England,  varies  from  15  shillings 
to  32  shillings  per  ton.  Add  about  9  shillings  and  you  have  the  price  at  New  York  with- 
out the  duty.  These  clays,  though  varying  in  cost,  are  in  fact  all  of  one  kind ,  the  reason 
for  the  difference  in  cost  being  that  the  more  expensive  clays  are  more  thoroughly 
washed  when  taken  from  the  mine  and  are  of  a  whiter  color.  The  expensive  clays  are 
used  in  the  finished  paper  by  the  coating  manufacturers,  potters,  and  to  a  limited 


into  the  United  States.  This  is  only  $6.76  per  ton  at  port  of  shipment.  (United 
States  Bureau  of  Statistics,  No.  15,  imports  entered  for  consumption  years  ending  June 
30,1909-10,  p.  965.)  To  this  must  be  added  9  shillings  for  ocean  freight  and  $2.50  per 
ton  duty,  making  the  average  value  at  United  States  seaboard  $11.42  per  ton.  English 
clays  sold  in  1909,  Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia,  at  prices  ranging  from  $11 
per  ton  to  $18  per  ton.  Thus  there  can  not  be  much  expensive  English  clay  imported, 
or  the  average  would  be  higher. 

Inasmuch  as  the  importation  of  the  more  expensive  English  clays  is  comparatively 
small,  and,  furthermore,  as  there  are  no  American  clays  of  sufficient  whiteness  to  be  in 
competition  with  these  English  clays,  we  shall  say  no  more  about  them  in  this  brief. 
We  think  they  do  not  alter  our  conclusions  in  either  direction,  and  therefore  at  once 
proceed  to  the  lower  grade  English  clays,  of  which  so  large  a  bulk  is  imported. 

We  shall  then  give  evidence  showing  a  comparison  of  the  cheaper  English  clays 
and  domestic  paper  clays,  starting  with  the  clay  in  its  natural  state,  then  showing 
the  analyses  of  the  domestic  and  English,  then  the  uses,  the  tariff,  the  size  of  the 
domestic-clay  industry,  and  the  competition  existing  among  American  paper 
manufacturers. 

IN   ITS    NATURAL   STATE. 

China  clay,  or  kaolin,  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  viz,  residual  and  sedimentary. 

Residual  days. — Beds  of  china  clay  occurring  in  or  very  close  to  their  place  of  origin 
are  known  as  residual  clays.  All  English  clays  are  residual,  and  the  deposit  is  decom- 
posed granite.  The  method  of  mining  is  by  sending  a  stream  of  water  down  the  side 
or  stope  of  the  pit,  and  this  stream  takes  up  and  carries  with  it  feldspar,  mica,  and 
sand.  This  material  is  pumped,  strained,  and  settled,  then  dried  in  kilns.  (See 
photographs  attached  of  English  mines,  showing  this  method.) 

The  residual  clays  of  the  United  States  do  not  concern  us,  since  they  would  not  be 
affected  by  removal  of  the  duty,  as  hereinafter  explained. 

Sedimentary  clays. — In  the  erosion  of  the  earth's  surface  residual  clay  is  washed 
down  into  tlie  lakes  and  seas,  where  it  is  deposited  in  the  form  of  a  sediment,  with 
the  addition  of  many  impurities.  This  latter  is  known  as  sedimentary  clay. 

The  clay  deposits  of  Aiken,  S.  C.,  are  sedimentary,  and  in  this  area  are  most  of  the 
so-called  paper  clays  produced  in  the  United  States  which  could  be  affected  by  the 
removal  of  duty  on  English  clay. 

The  mining  of  these  clays  is  simple.  The  overburden,  or  earth  on  top,  is  removed, 
and  from  the  solid  mass  of  clay  lumps  are  separated  by  pick  and  shovel.  These  are 
roughly  assorted  into  grades,  determined  by  color,  and  stains  pared  off.1  The  clay 
is  then  dried  in  an  open  shed,  is  casked,  and  ready  for  market.  In  some  instances 
the  clay  is  washed  with  good  results.  (Attached  are  cuts  from  photographs  of  some 
of  the  principal  domestic  mines. )  For  samples  of  the  deposits  of  English  and  American 
clay  see  Exhibits  "A"  and  "B." 


524 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

ANALYSES. 

We  here  present  a  table  of  an  average  test  of  English  clay  and  a  test  of  clay  from  two 
mines  in  South  Carolina  and  one  in  North  Carolina.  As  explained,  the  North  Caro- 
lina clay  is  called  kaolin: 


Medium 
English 
china  clay. 

Paper  clay, 
South 
Carolina.2 

Paper  clay, 
South 
Carolina.' 

North 
Carolina 
kaolin.' 

Silica  

46.62 

45.02 

44.23 

45.70 

Alumina  .    .    .    ,    , 

38.98 

38.98 

38.92 

40.61 

Ferric  oxide  

.81 

.77 

2.31 

1.39 

Lime                          ...              

.69 

1.39 

Magnesia  

.10 

.07 

Tr. 

.09 

Moisture.       .  .                                    .                

.35 

Ignition  or  total  water  

12.30 

13.58 

12.90 

8.98 

Alkalies  

.50 

2.82 

Titanic  oxide 

.85 

1.21 

Zinc. 

.03 

.12 

Potash  

.26 

.30 

Soda  

.55 

.26 

100.00 

100.11 

100.25 

100.39 

i  South  Carolina  Geological  Survey,  series  4,  Bulletin  1,  1904,  p.  62. 
-  South  Carolina  Geological  Survey. 
3  North  Carolina  Geological  Survey. 

Now  as  to  test  by  analysis: 

"There  are,  however,  many  physical  properties  which  the  ultimate  analysis  does 
not  explain,  because  they  are  dependent  largely  on  the  mineralogical  composition."1 

Two  clays  might  show  practically  the  same  chemical  analysis  and  one  be  much 
whiter  than  the  other,  enough  so  as  to  make  the  one  commercially  valuable  where  the 
other  could  not  find  a  market.  The  accompanying  exhibits  will  relieve  from  all 
doubt  that  there  is  a  difference,  for  practical  purposes,  between  the  English  and 
American  clay. 

Exhibit  0  shows  10  grains  of  ordinary  English  clay  in  a  certain  quantity  of  distilled 
water.  Exhibit  D  shows  10  grains  of  high-grade  domestic  paper  clay  in  the  same 
condition.  On  shaking  these  bottles  it  is  apparent  that  the  English  clay  is  held  in 
suspension  to  a  far  greater  degree  than  the  domestic.  This  goes  to  show,  first,  that  the 
English  clay  is  finer  in  grain  than  the  domestic;  second,  it  has  less  grit  or  free  silica. 
The  same  experiment  tried  with  washed  domestic  clay  as  against  the  English  still 
shows  the  English  is  far  superior. 

Exhibits  E  and  K.  samples  of  English  and  domestic  paper  clay,  respectively,  further 
show  that  the  domestic  clay  is  harder,  shorter,  leaner,  more  yellow  in  color.  The 
sample  of  English  clay  is  better  color,  and  is  termed  by  the  miners  fat,  long,  or  greasy,2 
and  possesses  a  higher  degree  of  plasticity  than  domestic.  Plasticity  is  an  important 
feature  in  clay  for  paper  making.  Thus  it  is  apparent  that  no  expert  knowledge  is 
necessary  to  distinguish  the  difference  between  the  two  kinds  of  clay. 


By  far  the  largest  use  of  china  clay  is  for  paper  making.  Twenty-five  years  ago 
paper  was  made  chiefly  from  rags  and  old  papers.  There  was  not  then  the  need  of  the 
china  clay,  as  the  papers  were  easily  finished.  'When  ground  wood  and  sulphite,  on 
account  of  their  lower  cost,  began  to  replace  rags,  a  new  need  arose  for  china  clay,  to 
fill  and  finish  these  papers  made  from  wood.'  Without  china  clay  the  surface' was 
harsh  and  not  printable.  So  that,  while  china  clay  was  used  to  a  small  extent  with 
the  old  rair  papers,  it  lias  now  become  an  abs<  >lu1e  necessity  for  much  of  the  paper  made. 

Of  all  the  china  clay  used  in  the  United  States  in  the  year  June  30,  1909-10,  there 
were  imported  240.881  short  tons,  of  the  value  of  $1.505, 779. 3  There  was  produced  in 
the  United  States  in  the  year  1909  paper  clays  81 ,58C,  short  tons,  of  the  value  of  $386,764. 
From  these  two  sources  practically  all  the  clay  used  in  paper  making  was  derived. 

Of  the  kaolin  there  was  produced  in  Xortli  Carolina  and  other  States  31,227  short 
tons,  of  the  value  of  $241, 000. 4  It  mav  be  well  to  state  here  that  the  North  Carolina 


1  North  Carolina  Geological  Survey  Bulletin  No.  13,  by  Heinrich  Hies,  1897,  p.  30. 

2  Rudolph  V/au'ner.  1'h.  I.).,  professor  of  chemical  technology  at  the  University  of  Wurzburg. 

'  Statistics  of  the  Clay-working  Industries  of  the  United  States,  1990,  U.  S.  Geological  Survey,  p.  67. 
«  Statistics  of  the  Clay-working  Industries  of  the  United  States,  1909,  U.  8.  Geological  Survey,  p.  65 


SCHEDULE   B.  525 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

kaolin  and  other  kaolin,  the  residuary  clay,  of  an  average  value  of  $7.72  per  short  ton 
at  the  mine,  is  used  almost  wholly  in  potting,  and  is  far  superior  to  the  average  paper 
clay,  which  sells  for  only  $4.74  a  short  ton  at  mine.  This  domestic  kaolin,  owing  to  its 
ability  to  stand  being  fired  by  intense  heat,  has  no  equal  for  potting.  English  clays 
have  to  be  fired  much  more  slowly.  To  show  that  there  is  no  competition  between  the 
kaolin  and  English  clays  in  pottery,  we  have  the  added  fact  that  it  is  advantageous  to 
use  the  two  different  kinds  of  clay.  In  other  words,  the  English  clay  is  combined  with 
the  North  Carolina  kaolin  to  make  the  proper  mixture. 

The  following  table  is  inserted  with  the  idea  of  ascertaining  how  far  the  English  clays 
are  in  competition  with  the  domestic  clays: 

(Estimated,  1909.) 


English 
clay,  short 
tons. 

American 
paper  clay, 
short  tons. 

Book  and  coating  

184,785 

Potterv                                        

29,566 

Bleacheries     .    .                

17,247 

News  paper  

12,319 

Ultramarine                                             

2,464 

News  wall  paper,  and  low-grade  book  

81,586 

In  book  paper  an  average  of  20  per  cent  of  the  furnish  or  raw  material  is  English 
clay,  in  cover  paper  20  per  cent,  in  plate  lithograph  paper  25  per  cent,  in  cardboard 
Bristol,  10  per  cent.  In  coated  paper  25  per  cent  additional  weight  of  English  clay 
is  placed  on  the  surface,  besides  the  amount  in  the  body  of  the  paper. 

As  was  explained  before,  the  ordinary  paper  is  filled  with  English  clay.  The 
coated  paper  is  also  covered  with  English  clay  by  means  of  rotary  brushes,  thereby 
giving  it  a  fine  finish,  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  better  class  of  woodcuts  and  other 
processes  in  printing.  Take,  as  an  example,  the  frontispiece  or  illustrated  pages  of 
our  weekly  or  monthly  magazines. 

Bleachers  use  this  clay  for  filling,  in  flour  sacks  made  of  a  coarse  cotton,  table  oil- 
cloths, carriage  covers,  curtains,  and  for  filling  and  whitening  cloth.  In  this  the 
quality  needed  in  plasticity,  freedom  from  grit  and  oxide  of  iron,  and  clay  should  be 
of  good  color. 

In  ultramarine  the  requisite  for  a  clay  is  that  it  should  be  highly  aluminous,  con- 
tain no  ferric  oxide,  and  be  free  from  lime. 

The  quantity  of  English  clay  imported  in  1871  as  compared  with  1910  shows  an 
increase  from  13,081  tons  in  1871  to  230,634  tons  in  1910.1 


The  present  duty  on  this  article  is  $2.50  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds.  This  is  a  tax  on  a 
raw  material  of  36.97  per  cent  ad  valorem.  From  this  tax  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment received  a  revenue  of  $578,086  in  1909-10. 2  With  the  present  agreement  with 
Canada,  however,  the  Canadian  finished  product,  paper  made  from  wood  grown  on 
private  lands,  costing  4  cents  a  pound  and  under,  is  admitted  free  into  the  United 
States.  Canada  pays  no  duty  on  raw  material. 

COMPETITION. 

In  the  hearing  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  1908  the  committee  made 
much  of  the  point  that  if  the  duty  were  taken  off  china  clay  the  clay  importers  and 
the  paper  manufacturers  and  not  the  consumer  would  profit.  This  is^  improbable. 
In  the  first  place  there  is  competition  among  the  paper  makers  in  the  United  States, 
as  evidenced  by  the  yearly  bids  on  Government  contracts  for  paper,3  viz:  Early  in 
1910  thirty-six  concerns,  embracing  practically  all  the  leading  paper  makers  in  the 
United  States,  or  their  agents,  tried  to  secure  these  contracts.  Second,  and  even 
more  conclusive,  is  the  competition  with  the  finished  product  of  Canada,  now  admit- 


i  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

-  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Statistics.     Imports  entered  for  consumption, 
years  ended  June  30, 1909  and  1910,  p.  965. 
»  Taken  from  United  States  advertisement  for  bids  on  paper. 


526  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

ted  free.  With  her  forests  of  spruce  and  unlimited  water  power  running  through  the 
same  forests  and  with  French  Canadian  labor,  Canada  is  considered  the  most  advan- 
tageous country  in  the  world  for  the  manufacture  of  paper.  Already  two  of  our 
largest  paper-making  concerns  have  made  purchases  in  Canada  in  preparation  of 
manufacturing  there. 

AMERICAN   CLAY   AND   PAPER   INDUSTRIES. 

True  it  is  that  the  American  clay  industry  is  a  large  one,  if  stoneware  clay,  brick 
clay,  slip  clay,  paper  clay,  etc.,  are  included.  The  total  quantity  mined  (1909)  was 
2,159,647  tons  of  the  value  of  $3,449,707;  average  value  per  ton,  fl.60.1  The  paper- 
clay  production  of  81,586  tons  and  the  kaolin  mining  of  31,227  tons  of  the  total  value 
of  $627,824  is,  however,  a  small  part  of  the  whole  United  States  clay  industry.  Fur- 
thermore, clay  is  reduced  from  its  native  state  by  comparatively  few  workmen,  so 
that  the  total  amount  of  labor  involved  in  the  United  States  paper-clay  and  kaolin 
industries  is  small.  In  1905,  2,128  men  were  employed,  with  wages  of  $898,700,  in 
the  industry,  all  kinds  kaolins  and  earths  included,2  whereas  the  number  in  the  paper 
industry  for  the  same  year  was  65,964,  with  wages  of  $32,019, 212.3  The  total  value 
of  paper  products  in  1909  was  $267,869,000,4  and  the  total  number  of  wage  earners  was 
75,998  for  1909. 5  Of  this  total  value  the  following  are  some  of  the  items. 

[Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bureau  of  Census,  pp.  4  and  5,  Apr.  27,  1911.] 

Book  paper $42, 803, 000 

Cover  paper 1,  761, 000 

Plate  lithograph 821,  000 

Cardboard 'bristol 3,  352,  000 

Coated  paper 9,  414,  000 

It  is  therefore  apparent  that  the  United  States  china-clay  industry  is  of  small 
account  in  comparison  with  the  paper  industry. 

ARGUMENT. 

We  shall  make  a  comparison  from  the  point  of  view  of  public  policy  of  the  probable 
injuries  and  benefits  that  will  arise  from  the  removal  of  the  duty. 

There  is  no  substitute  for  English  clay  in  the  better  classes  of  paper.  Exhibits,  and 
the  fact  that  American  paper  manufacturers  have  paid  the  duty  to  use  English  clay 
to  such  a  large  extent,  are  proofs  of  this. 

The  possible  injury  to  domestic  clay  is  limited  to  its  use  in  low-grade  papers.  The 
lowest  grade  English  clay  at  our  seaboards,  duty  free,  costs  but  little  more  than  the 
best  domestic  paper  clays,  but  the  size  of  the  total  output,  the  value  involved, and 
the  amount  of  labor  in  our  paper  clay  are  insignificant  when  compared  with  the 
injury  to  nvr  paper  industry. 

The  probability  of  such  injury  to  the  domestic  clay  industry  is  a  reason  that  must 
be  met.  A  seco.ul  reason  against  removal  is  that  the  United  States  can  not  afford  to 
lose  an  annual  revenue  of  $578,086.  This  reason  is  in  theory  indefensible,  since  the 
revenue  is  derived  from  a  duty  on  a  raw  material. 

The  practical  answer  to  both  of  the  above  reasons  is  the  chief  argument  for  removal 
of  duty,  viz:  The  free  admission  of  the  Canadian  finished  product,  coupled  with  the 
present  United  States  duty  on  raw  material,  will  drive  our  paper  makers  to  Canada. 
The  natural  advantages  of  Canada  for  paper  making  are  considerable.  Our  paper 
makers  already  buy  a  large  amount  of  Canadian  wood  pulp.  The  streams  there  are 
well  located.  French  Canadian  labor  is  cheap.  The  combination  of  the  natural 
advantages  of  Canada  and  the  artificial  disadvantage  of  the  United  States  paper  makers 
caused  by  a  duty  on  a  raw  material  has  already  forced  two  of  our  largest  paper  makers 
to  purchase  lands  in  Canada  for  manufacturing  purposes.  Public  policy  demands  the 
immediate  removal  of  the  duty  on  china  clay. 

i  U.  S.  Geological  Survey.  Statistics  of  the  Clay-working  Industries  in  the  United  States  in  1909,  p.  65. 
>  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Census  of  Manufactures  1905,  United  States,  p.  84. 

•  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Census  of  Manufactures  1905,  United  States,  p.  87. 

«  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Paper  and  Wood  Pulp  Statistics,  published  Apr.  27, 1911,  p.  5. 

*  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  letter  from  Acting  Director  W.  H.  Hathaway. 


SCHEDULE   B.  527 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

Finally,  and  in  behalf  of  the  paper  makers,  appeal  is  made  that,  in  the  drawing  of 
the  bill  to  go  before  the  next  House,  you  will  not  tax  a  raw  material,  while  admitting 
finished  product  free.  That  is  the  hardship  now  being  imposed  on  our  paper  makers, 
and  we  ask  relief  from  this  situation. 

JOHN  RICHARDSON. 
JOHN  RICHARDSON,  Jr., 

Attorney. 
BOSTON,  MASS.,  November  17,  1911. 

[Supplementary  brief  of  John  Richardson  Co.,  John  Richardson,  John  Richardson,  jr.,  201  Devonshire 

Street,  Boston,  Mass.] 

This  supplementary  brief  is  filed  in  reply  to  the  following  requests  for  information 
made  by  Hon.  O.  W.  Underwood,  chairman,  in  notice  of  tariff  hearings,  1913,  dated 
Washington,  D.  C.,  December  11,  1912: 

(1)  State  by  items  and  paragraphs  the  changes  in  duties  recommended,  assigning 
in  each  instance  reasons  for  recommendations: 

Paragraph  90,  act  of  1909,  Payne-Aldrich  bill — removal  of  duty  from  China  clay 
or  kaolin. 

Reasons:  First,  the  damage  done  by  the  duty  to  the  great  paper  industry,  employ- 
ing over  65,000  men;1  second,  the  comparatively  insignificant  damage  by  removal 
of  the  duty  to  the  southern  clay  industry. 

As  to  the  first  point,  paper  making  is  among  the  largest  industries  of  the  United 
States.  Our  makers  of  the  better  grades  of  paper  must  have  English  clay.  The 
duty  upon  this  raw  material  is  now  over  36  per  cent.  From  this  tax  the  United  States 
Government  receives  annually  a  revenue  of  over  half  a  million  dollars.2  That  revenue 
i?  in  the  end  paid  by  the  paper  makers.  Canada's  facilities  for  the  manufacture  of 
paper  excel  those  of  the  United  States.  China  clay  is  admitted  free  in  Canada,  her 

Eaper  conies  here  free.  Already  a  number  of  American  paper  makers  have  bought 
ind  there.  Each  dollar  collected  as  duty  means  a  gain  of  $1  to  the  paper  maker  who 
goes  to  Canada. 

Now,  for  the  second  point — the  comparatively  insignificant  damage  to  the  domestic 
clay  industry.  The  total  value  of  domestic  paper  clay  produced  in  1909  was  less  than 
$400,000.3  Under  1,500  men  are  employed.4  From  1905  to  1910,  in  spite  of  the  duty, 
the  increase  of  English  clay  imported  over  the  increase  of  domestic  clay  produced 
was  938  per  cent.  * 

This  duty,  then,  borne  by  the  paper  makers,'  of  over  half  a  million  dollars  a  year, 
protects  an  industry  with  a  total  annual  output  of  less  than  $400,000,  and  employing 
under  1,500  men. 

For  additional  reasons,  see  original  brief  filed  herewith. 

(2)  Estimate  the  increase  or  decrease  in  imports  by  paragraphs  and  items,  which 
would  result  from  suggested  modifications  of  duties:  Since  1907  the  world -wide  demand 
for  English  clay  has  exceeded  the  supply.     Makers  of  fine  paper  can  not  get  enough 
now.     In  the  near  future  removal  of  duty  will  not  increase  importation  beyond  the 
present  rate  of  increase,  which  is  less  than  needed  by  the  growing  paper  industry. 
The  old  mines  are  being  developed  and  new  ones  opened.     The  removal  will  probably 
ultimately  accelerate  the  increase  of  output  and  of  importation.     We  are  unable  to 
estimate  when,  if  ever,  the  supply  will  overtake  the  demand. 

(3)  Explain  methods  or  experience  relied  upon  in  making  estimate:  Thirty  years' 
experience  in  the  china  clay  business. 

(4)  Suggestions  as  to  changes  in  phraseology  of  present  tariff  law:  China  clay  or 
kaolin  free. 

(5)  Suggestions  as  to  the  betterment  of  the  administrative  features  of  the  present 
law:  We  shall  not  make  any  suggestions,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  think  the  whole 
duty  ought  to  be  removed 

JOHN  RICHARDSON. 
JOHN  RICHARDSON,  Jr. 

1  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  Census  of  Manufactures,  1905,  United  States,  p.  87. 

3  Department  Commerce  and  Labor,  United  States  Bureau  Statistics,  Imports  entered  for  consumption, 
years  June  30, 1909-10,  p.  965.  Also  our  original  brief,  p.  11. 

8  Geological  Survey  Statistics  of  the  Clay- Working  Industries  for  1910,  p.  45. 

«  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Census  of  Manufactures  1905,  United  States,  p.  84.  Two  thousand 
one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  men  includes  all  kinds  of  kaolins  and  ground  earths.  Our  figures,  1,500,  are 
high. 

*  The  figures  for  these  two  items  are  to  be  found  on,  respectively,  pp.  45  and  50,  United  States  Geological 
Survey  for  1910,  Statistics  of  the  Clay- Working  Industries  of  the  United  States.  • 


528  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  PETEE  W.  MORGAN,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CLAY  PRODUCERS'  ASSOCIATION,  MACON,  GA. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Morgan.,  what  section  do  you  appear  in  refer- 
ence to  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Schedule  B,  paragraph  90. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  read  what  I  have  to  say,  because  I  am  not 
accustomed  to  public  speaking.  [Reading:] 

I  represent  the  American  Clay  Producers'  Association.  This  association  is  not 
organized  for  the  regulation  of  prices,  the  division  of  territory,  or  for  any  unlawful 
purpose,  but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  taking  united  action  in  such  matters  as  may 
affect  the  general  welfare  of  the  constitutent  members  and  the  china  clay  industry. 

We  are  all  engaged  in  the  china  clay  or  kaolin  industry.  Our  properties  and  works 
are  located  in  the  States  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  North  and  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Florida. 

There  is  a  duty  of  $2.50  per  gross  ton  charged  on  imports  of  clay  classified  under 
Schedule  B,  paragraph  90. 

The  deposits  of  clay  from  which  our  industries  make  their  material  are  known  as 
sedimentary  clays  and  are  found  under  surface  overburdens  ranging  from  10  to  50 
feet,  every  ounce  of  which  has  to  be  removed.  No  practical  method  of  underground 
mining  for  this  material  has  been  found.  The  thickness  of  the  clay  beds  vary  from 
10  to  20  feet,  and  it  may  be  calculated  that  about  4  cubic  yards  of  surface  has  to  be 
moved  for  each  yard  of  clay  mined. 

Some  of  these  clays  are  sufficiently  pure  to  be  shipped  crude  after  slight  prepara- 
tion, selection,  and  drying,  but  the  great  majority  have  to  be  refined  by  levigation  in 
water,  and  in  a  number  of  cases  a  careful  blending  of  materials  is  required  to  produce  a 
merchantable  commodity. 

The  industry  is  a  comparatively  young  one  and  has  involved  a  considerable  invest- 
ment of  money  and  an  exhaustive  amount  of  energy  in  every  department  for  the  pur- 
pose of  developing  the  most  economical  methods  of  producing  the  clays  suited  for  the 
different  commercial  uses. 

The  members  of  our  association  have  all  gone  through  exasperating  experiences, 
have  devoted  much  time  and  capital  to  the  working  out  of  the  numerous  problems 
connected  with  their  business.  Few  of  them  have  reached  the  point  where  the  re- 
turns are  commensurate  with  the  investment  of  time  or  money,  and  we  therefore  urge 
that  your  committee  allow  the  duty  to  remain  as  it  stands  at  present.  Several  good 
reasons  may  be  presented  for  your  favorable  consideration  of  our  request: 

First.  This  is,  comparatively  speaking,  an  infant  industry  in  the  United  States, 
and  has  been  instrumental  in  developing  natural  resources  in  various  sections  of  the 
country,  particularly  in  the  South. 

Second.  The  domestic  production  of  Kaolin,  or  China  clay,  has  materially  reduced 
the  price  of  the  imported  article.  It  is  within  the  memory  of  men  still  engaged  in  the 
business  that  domestic  china  clay  has  sold  for  as  much  as  $15  per  ton  at  the  mines. 
The  present  price  for  the  same  articles  is  from  $4  to  $5  per  ton.  The  miners  and  re- 
finers of  this  country  are  compelled  to  fix  their  prices  to  a  large  extent  on  what  the 
foreign  clays  of  similar  qualities  are  offered  at.  The  paper  makers,  who  are  our  largest 
customers,  will,  in  all  probability,  ask  for  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  clay,  and  they 
or  the  importers  will  not  suggest  to  your  honorable  committee  that  the  domestic 
production  has  been  the  means  of  reducing  the  cost  of  both  American  and  foreign 
clays.  The  present  price  of  our  product  ranges  from  $4  to  $6  per  ton  at  the  mines, 
and  the  members  of  this  association  beg  to  submit  for  your  consideration  the  fact  that 
if  the  duty  of  $2.50  is  removed  and  it  should  appear  that  our  prices  have  to  be  reduced 
to  meet  the  reduction  in  cost,  we  should  inevitably  have  to  go  out  of  business,  there  being 
no  such  margin  of  profit  as  would  permit  us  to  operate. 

Third.  Our  mines  are  located  at  points  quite  removed  from  the  places  of  utilization, 
and  while  we  have  no  ground  for  complaint  regarding  cost  of  transportation,  we  are 
at,  a  marked  geographical  disadvantage  as  compared  with  our  trans-Atlantic  competi- 
tors who  can  ship  from  Cornwall  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or  Portland  at  lower 
freight  rates  than  have  to  be  paid  by  us.  The  two  first-named  cities  are  both  large 
markets  for  clay,  and  Portland  is  the  gateway  to  the  paper  mills  of  the  State  of  Maine. 

Fourth.  By  reason  of  the  heavy  movement  of  produce  to  the  seaboard  and  in  con- 
sequence the  number  of  empty  cars  available  to  be  returned  west,  the  railroads  have 


SCHEDULE   B.  529 

PARAGRAPH  90- CHINA  CLAY. 

made  special  rates  for  imports  to  be  carried  from  abroad  to  western  consuming  points, 
and  foreign  clay  seems  to  have  been  especially  favored  in  th.s  respect.  Our  repre- 
sentations to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  for  relief  in  this  regard  are  met  by 
the  response  that  their  duty  does  not  seem  to  lie  in  the  direction  of  advancing  rail- 
road rates.  We  cite  as  example  that  from  New  Orleans  to  Chicago  a  rate  as  low  as  7 
cents  per  100  pounds  has  been  quoted  on  imported  clay,  while  from  our  mines,  which 
are  several  hundred  miles  nearer  Chicago,  the  rate  is  21  cents  per  100  pounds.  For 
your  further  information  we  may  say  that  clays  can  be  shipped  from  Fowey  in  Corn- 
wall to  Chicago  via  Philadelphia,  Boston,  or  Portland  for  approximately  the  same 
freight  rate  which  we  have  to  pay  from  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  and  Florida.  To 
some  other  consuming  points  the  difference  in  favor  of  the  importer  is  even  greater. 

Fifth.  The  cost  to  us  of  fuel,  engine  supplies,  tools,  etc.,  are  all  higher  than  are 
paid  for  similar  things  abroad,  while  for  labor  we  have  to  pay  negroes  higher  wages 
than  are  paid  to  first-class  unskilled  laborers  at  the  English  mines.  For  superintend- 
ents and  foremen  we  pay  nearly  twice  the  price  paid  in  England.  The  disadvantage 
at  which  we  are  placed  in  regard  to  labor  is  not  diminishing  by  any  means,  and  in 
respect  of  this  one  item  at  the  present  moment  the  English  miners  can  get  labor  at 
prices  50  per  cent  less  than  we  nave  to  pay.  We  find  it  difficult  to  secure  sufficient 
labor  with  an  advancing  scale  of  wages.  Labor  constitutes  at  least  80  per  cent  of  the 
cost  of  this  product. 

Sixth.  The  Government  at  the  present  time  derives  an  annual  revenue  of  approxi- 
mately $600,000  from  the  duty  on  this  commodity,  and  we  believe  that  if  this  duty 
were  removed  entirely,  or  in  part,  that  such  a  reduction  would  produce  so  infinitesimal 
a  diminution  in  the  cost  of  articles  into  the  manufacture  of  which  it  enters  as  to  give  no 
benefit  to  consumers. 

We  would  further  submit  for  your  consideration  in  our  favor  that  we  believe  that  in 
the  clays  of  this  country  we  will  and  are  striving  to  find  all  the  qualities  of  material 
necessary  to  supply  the  home  market;  that  the  initial  expenses  of  investigation  and 
test  are  all  very  costly,  and  with  prices  at  the  present  low  level  there  is  little  margin  of 
profit,  while  if  we  are  compelled  to  submit  to  a  reduction  the  enterprises  must  be 
inevitably  strangled  and  abandoned. 

The  foregoing  is  subscribed  by  the  Georgia  Kaolin  Co.,  Mclntyre  Kaolin  Co.,  Ameri- 
can Clay  Co.,  Albion  Kaolin  Co.,  the  Edgar  Bros.  Plastic  Kaolin  Co.,  the  Harris  Clay 
Co.,  Atlanta  Mining  Clay  Co.,  Edgar  Bros.  Co.,  Immaculate  Clay  Co.,  and  Philadel- 
phia Clay  Co. 

BRIEF  OF  PERKINS  GOODWIN  CO.,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

NEW  YORK,  January  4,  1913. 
COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  desire  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  discrimination  existing  in 
paragraph  90  of  the  present  tariff  (Schedule  B — Earths,  earthenware,  and  glassware) 
between  clays  or  earths  wrought  or  manufactured  provided  for  at  $2  per  ton,  and  china 
clay  or  kaolin  provided  for  at  $2.50  per  ton. 

The  term  "china  clay,"  we  believe,  was  first  used  in  connection  with  certain  grades  of 
clay  found  in  England,  largely  in  Cornwall  and  Devonshire,  which  were  discovered 
to  be  especially  adapted  for  making  pottery  or  china.  The  term  "kaolin,"  as  we  under- 
stand it,  was  originally  given  to  clays  having  similar  uses,  found  in  Austria.  By  an 
extension  of  the  trade  understanding  there  are  now  English  kaolins  as  well.  The  only 
unwrought  or  unmanufactured  clays,  which  are  also  provided  for  in  the  same  para- 
graph, of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  are  what  are  technically  known  as  'ball 
clays."  These  are  crude,  inferior  pottery  clays  usually  imported  in  lump  form  and 
always  unwashed.  Clay  which  has  been  washed,  dried,  and  ground — in  other  words, 
advanced  beyond  the  crude,  unwrought  condition  in  which  it  is  taken  from  the  earth — 
has  always  been  held  to  be  dutiable  as  a  wrought  or  manufactured  clay.  The  Treasury 
Department  so  ruled  many  years  ago  before  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers  was  estab- 
lished (see  Treasury  Decisions,  9249),  and  this  ruling  has  never  been  reversed.  In 
consequence  all  clays,  including  china  clay  and  kaolin,  excepting  ball  clay,  are  in  fact 
wrought  or  manufactured  clays.  To  be  used  as  a  china  or  pottery  clay  the  clay  must 
possess  certain  burning  qualities. 

If  the  clay  does  not  possess  these  qualities  which  specially  adapt  it  for  pottery  pur 
poses  (and  this  frequently  happens  with  clays  coming  from  the  same  district  and  the 
locality),  it  ran  ho  used  for  other  purposes,  such  as  paper  making,  filling  of 

78959°— VOL  1—13 34 


530  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— CHINA  CLAY. 

cotton  cloth,  or  linoleum  manufacture.  To  apply  the  term  china  clay  to  such  clays  is 
a  misnomer.  The  grade  of  wrought  or  manufactured  clay  or  kaolin  used  in  making 
high-grade  papers,  but  nevertheless  not  possessing  the  burning  qualities  for  pottery 
uses,  is  frequently  superior  to  china  clay  or  kaolin  used  for  pottery  purposes.  There 
is  no  sound  reason  for  tariff  discrimination  between  these  articles,  and  it  tends  to 
confusion.  Prior  to  the  Dingley  law  such  discrimination  did  not  exist.  We  append 
the  pertinent  provisions  of  the  tariff  laws  of  1883,  1890,  1894,  1897,  and  1909  for  the 
information  of  the  committee. 

1883. — 98.  All  earths  or  clays,  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially  enumerated 
or  provided  for  in  this  act,  three  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay,  or  kaoline,  three  dollars 
per  ton. 

1890. — 98.  Clays  or  earths,  unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  act,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  three  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay,  or  kaolin,  three 
dollars  per  ton. 

1894. — 82.  Clays  or  earths,  unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  act,  one  dollar  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially  provided  for 
in  this  act,  two  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay  or  kaolin,  two  dollars  per  ton. 

1897. — 93.  Clays  or  earths,  unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  act,  one  dollar  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  act,  two  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay  or  kaolin,  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents 
per  ton. 

1909. — 90.  Clays  or  earths,  unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  one  dollar  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  not  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  this  section,  two  dollars  per  ton;  china  clay  or  kaolin,  two  dollars  and 
fifty  cents  per  ton. 

Inasmuch  as  there  is  a  little  real  competition  between  foreign  clays  and  domestic 
clays  by  reason  of  the  great  difference  in  quality,  and  inasmuch  as  English  wrought 
clays  are  the  raw  material  especially  of  paper  and  linoleum  manufacturers,  we  would 
urge  a  reduction  in  duty  to  stimulate  importation  and  lead  to  increased  revenue. 
Whatever  the  rate  fixed  by  the  honorable  committee  and  by  Congress,  we  especially 
urge  a  return  to  the  principle  found  in  the  Wilson  Act  of  1894  and  prior  tariff  acts, 
and  that  the  same  rate  be  imposed  upon  wrought  clays  and  china  clay,  or  kaolin.  A 
clause  providing: 

Clays  or  earths,  unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this 
section.  —  —  per  ton;  wrought  or  manufactured,  including  china  clay,  or  kaolin,  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  section, per  ton. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

PERKINS  GOODWIN  Co., 
By  S.  GOLDMAN,  Secretary. 

PROTEST  AGAINST  RATE  OF  DUTY  ON  CHINA  CLAY. 

THE  CHAMPION  COATED  PAPER  Co., 

Hamilton,  Ohio,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  Mr.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington.  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  are  advised  that  you  will  have  a  hearing  on  Wednesday  next  regard- 
ing the  duty  on  English  china  clay. 

There  is  no  substitute  in  this  country  for  this  clay.  It  is  a  decomposed  granite  and 
it  is  entirely  different  from  the  clays  in  this  and  other  countries.  We  are  paying  a  very 
high  tax  on  our  largest  raw  materials,  while  the  finished  product  comes  in  free  of  duty 
from  ( 'anada. 

We  therefore  hope  that  you  will  use  your  influence  to  see  that  this  duty  is  eliminated. 
Yours,  truly, 

THE  CHAMPION  COATED  PAPER  Co., 
By  PETEH  G.  THOMSON,  Vice  President. 


SCHEDULE  B.  531 

PARAGRAPH  9 O— FLUORSPAR. 

FLUORSPAR. 

STATEMENT    OF    C.   S.   NUNN,    ESQ.,    IN    BEHALF    OF   THE 
FLUORSPAR  INTERESTS. 

Mr.  NUNN.  If  the  committee  please,  you  have  been  good  enough  to 
assign  to  several  fluorspar  producers  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  before 
you,  but  to  conserve  your  time  they  have  agreed  I  may  present  the 
matter,  feeling  that  a  short  tune  will  suffice. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  which  paragraph  do  you  desire  to  address 
yourself? 

Mr.  NUNN.  Paragraph  90,  the  last  phrase  of  it,  with  reference  to 
fluorspar. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  NUNN.  For  the  information  of  the  committee  I  will  say  that 
fluorspar  is  a  mineral  product,  commercially  mined  in  America  in 
southern  Illinois  and  western  Kentucky,  a  relatively  small  district. 
It  is  a  small  industry.  I  think  perhaps  150,000  tons  will  cover  the 
total  American  consumption.  Some  85,000  to  100,000  tons  is  the 
American  production.  The  other  is  imported  from  Great  Britain — 
Durham  and  Derbyshire.  Over  80  per  cent  of  this  American  con- 
sumption is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  steel  by  the  open-hearth 
process.  It  is  the  only  method  of  steel  manufacture  in  wnich  fluor- 
spar is  used.  It  takes  about  8  to  10  pounds  of  fluorspar  to  make  one 
ton  of  finished  steel.  Prior  to  the  Payne  bill  there  was  no  tariff  on 
fluorspar.  Until  1904  we  needed  no  tariff  on  fluorspar.  The  fact  is 
that  was  really  the  beginning  of  what  we  call  the  industry  on  a  large 
scale. 

The  growth  of  the  open-hearth  steel  process  and  the  supplanting 
of  the  Bessemer  process  has  increased  the  use  of  fluorspar,  and  to 
supply  that  there  was  a  concern  named  Blackwell  &  Co.  which  dis- 
covered that  in  Great  Britain  there  were  immense  dumps  of  waste 
fluorspar  piled  up  there  at  old  abandoned  lead  mines.  It  was  a 
waste  proauct  at  the  tune  the  lead  was  mined.  There  are  millions 
of  tons  of  it,  as  we  are  informed.  The  mining  of  it  was  paid  for 
years  and  years  ago.  Blackwell  &  Co.  bought  the  dumps  at  an 
insignificant  sum.  It  is  close  to  the  coast.  They  began  to  load  it  in 
vessels  and  bring  it  over  here  as  ballast,  free  of  duty;  the  prices  at 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  being  $3  a  ton,  whereas  unless  we  could 
get  $6  a  ton  for  it  aboard  the  cars  in  Kentucky  and  Illinois  we  could 
not  live. 

From  that  time,  1905,  until  1909,  the  production  of  American 
fluorspar  decreased  from  50,000  to  about  30,000  tons  per  annum, 
and  trie  importation  of  British  fluorspar  increased  proportionately. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  are  the  importations  ? 

Mr.  NUNN.  In  1911,  which  are  the  last  figures  I  have,  the  importa- 
tions were  33,000  tons,  producing  to  the  Government  a  revenue  of 
a  little  over  $99,000. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  About  50  per  cent  ad  valorem? 

Mr.  NUNN.  No;  a  specific  rate  of  $3  a  ton. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  But  the  ad  valorem  equivalent? 

Mr.  NUNN.  That  is  the  equivalent;  yes,  sir. 


532  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  90— FLTTOBSPAB. 

.  Mr.  HARBISON.  The  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  your  American  price, 
and  about  100  per  cent  of  the  value  of  it  the  foreign  price  at  the 
customhouse? 

Mr.  NUNN.  It  was  first  sold  in  the  United  States  to  the  steel  people, 
at  $5  per  ton  for  the  flux  fluorspar  aboard  the  cars,  when  we  could 
sell  it  at  all.  The  fact  is  our  trade  had  diminished  until  we  were 
really  not  in  the  market.  My  company  had  practically  suspended. 
I  am  president  of  the  Kentucky  Fluorspar  Co.,  and  we  were  the  largest 
of  the  Kentucky  producers. 

The  effect  of  this  tariff  has  been  to  increase  the  price  $1  per  ton. 
We  sell  it  on  board  the  cars  at  Marion,  Ky. ,  at  $6  per  ton.  That  increase 
of  $1  per  ton  in  the  price  of  fluorspar  has  increased  the  cost  of  steel  in 
the  sum  of  one-half  cent  per  ton  to  the  steel  manufacturer.  It  takes 
a  pretty  high-power  glass  to  discover  what  increase  that  is  in  the  cost 
of  finisned  steel  products  to  the  final  consumer. 

As  we  see  it,  the  imposition  of  that  duty  hurts  no  one.  It  has  been 
the  means  of  saving  the  industry  in  America.  It  has  had  this  fur- 
ther effect:  There  are  some  600  or  700  men  employed  in  our  county 
and  in  that  district.  Before  1909  they  were  getting  from  $1.50  to  $2 
per  day  wages.  The  average  wage  there  now,  not  counting  foremen, 
is  about  S2.50.  It  had  the  further  effect  of  increasing  the  production 
of  American  fluorspar  from  35,000  tons  in  1908, 1  think,  to  87,000 
tons  in  1911. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  total  amount  of  output  of  fluorspar  in  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  NUNN.  In  1911  the  American  production  was  87,000  tons. 
The  American  consumption  was  some  130,000  or  140,000  tons,  there 
having  been  30,000  to  50,000  tons  of  fluorspar  imported  annually 
since  the  Payne  Tariff  Act,  producing  a  revenue  to  the  Government 
of  from  $90,000  to  $130,000,  or  $140,000  annually. 

Feeling  that  the  imposition  of  this  duty  does  not  materially  injure 
anyone  and  is  of  great  value  to  us,  we  hope  the  committee  will  find  it 
consistent  with  their  view  of  the  facts  and  conditions  to  leave  that 
duty  remain  as  it  is. 

Having  thus  briefly  presented  the  matter  in  this  way,  I  desire  to 
present  it  more  in  detail  in  the  form  of  a  prepared  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  dp  that. 

Mr.  NUNN.  The  statement  is  submitted  in  support  of  the  present 
duty  of  $3  per  ton  fluorspar,  as  established  by  the  last  item  in  section 
90  of  Schedule  B  of  the  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  in  the  following 
words:  "Fluorspar,  S3  per  ton." 

The  Department  of  me  Interior,  United  States  Geological  Survey, 
issued  reports  on  the  production  of  fluorspar  for  the  years  1910  and 
1911.  An  earlier  report  was  issued  in  1905.  The  report  for  the  year 
1912  has  not  yet  been  published.  These  reports  show  42,488  tons  of 
fluorspar  imported  in  1910  and  32,864  tons  imported  in  1911.  On 
this  basis  the  revenue  to  the  Government  was  $127,464  in  1910  and 
$98,292  in  1911. 

This  statement  is  submitted  on  behalf  .of  the  producers  of  fluorspar 
in  the  States  of  Illinois  and  Kentucky,  who  have  been  engaged  in  the 
mining  of  fluorspar  for  an  extended  period  of  time  in  these  States. 
The  main  purpose  of  the  argument  is  to  convince  the  committee,  if 


SCHEDULE  B.  533 

PARAGRAPH  00— FLUORSPAR. 

possible,  first,  that  any  change  in  this  tariff  would  not  reduce  the  cost 
of  living;  second,  that  while  the  revenue  comparatively  is  not  large, 
the  duty  is  a  clear  application  of  the  principle  of  a  revenue  tariff ; 
third,  that  any  change  m  the  tariff  would  destroy  in  this  country  the 
business  of  mining  fluorspar,  an  essential  ingredient  in  the  process  of 
making  steel  by  the  open-hearth  method;  fourth,  that  there  is  no  real 
demand  for  such  a  change,  since  financial  benefit  from  such  a  change 
would  flow  into  the  pockets  of  the  foreign  producer  or  importer. 

In  regard  to  the  nature  and  commercial  uses  of  fluorspar,  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  are  taken  from  the  bulletin  of  the  Department  of 
the  Interior  for  the  year  1911 : 

Fluorspar  or  fluorite,  chemically  calcium  fluoride  (CaF?),  consists  of  calcium  and 
fluorine  in  the  proportions  of  51.1  to  48.9.  The  mineral  is  crystalline,  only  slightly 
harder  than  calcite.  Fluorspar,  associated  with  other  minerals,  has  a  broad  distri- 
bution geographically  and  a  wide  range  geologically.  The  deposits  thus  far  ex- 
ploited in  the  United  States  are,  however,  confined  to  the  States  of  Arizona,  New 
Mexico,  Colorado,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  and  New  Hampshire. 

Fluorspar  is  a  mineral  of  relatively  low  value  as  compared  with  metallic  ores  mined 
under  similar  conditions.  Under  the  most  favorable  conditions,  therefore,  the  margin 
of  profit  can  never  be  expected  to  be  large,  and  it  requires  exceptionally  good  man- 
agement to  conduct  any  spar  mining  operations  profitably,  unless  the  veins  are  thick 
and  of  uniformly  good  quality. 

Fluorspar  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  glass  and  of  enameled  and  sanitary  ware,  in 
the  electrolytic  refinmg  of  antimony  and  lead ,  the  production  of  aluminum,  the  manu- 
facture of  hydrofluoric  acid,  and  in  the  iron  and  steel  industries  in  which  it  is  used  as  a 
flux  in  blast  furnaces,  and  in  basic  open-hearth  steel  furnaces.  It  is  estimated  that 
about  80  per  cent  of  the  American  fluorspar  output,  namely,  in  the  form  of  gravel  spar, 
is  consumed  in  the  manufacture  of  basic  open-hearth  steel.  The  use  of  fluorspar  is 
increasing  in  practically  all  of  these  industries.  The  western  market  for  fluorspar  ia 
more  limited  than  that  of  the  Central  and  Eastern  States,  but  it  is  nevertheless  in- 
creasing. Recently  the  iron  and  steel  works  of  Irondale,  Wash.,  and  in  Shasta 
County,  Cal.,  have  been  enlarged. 

Supplies  of  spar  mined  in  the  West  have  heretofore  not  been  sufficient  to  supply 
the  western  market  for  more  than  a  few  months  at  a  time .  This  has  been  due  to  several 
conditions,  the  most  important  of  which  is  that  most  of  the  western  spar  thus  far  pro- 
duced has  not  been  of  so  high  a  grade  as  that  produced  in  the  Illinois-Kentucky  dis- 
trict. Fluorspar  for  iron  and  steel  making  should  carry  at  least  85  per  cent  calcium 
fluoride,  and  preferably  it  should  be  purer.  For  most  other  chemical  uses  it  should 
contain  from  95  to  98  per  cent  calcium  fluoride. 

There  are  two  main  grades  of  fluorspar  sold  on  the  market.  The 
first  is  known  as  "ground"  fluorspar,  and  contains  96  per  cent  or 
more  calcium  fluoride.  This  grade  is  sold  to  be  used  principally  in 
the  manufacture  of  glass,  of  enameled  and  sanitary  ware,  the  pro- 
duction of  aluminum,  and  the  manufacture  of  hydrofluoric  acid. 
The  second  grade  of  fluorspar  is  known  as  "gravel"  fluorspar,  and 
is  sold  almost  entirely  to  the  steel  mills  and  used  as  a  flux  in  the 
open-hearth  furnaces.  This  grade  should  contain  85  per  cent  or  more 
in  calcium  fluoride.  Gravel  fluorspar  amounts  to  more  than  80  per 
cent  of  the  production,  and  the  average  price  for  domestic  fluorspar 
of  all  grades  in  1911  was  only  $7.02.  It  is  therefore  manifest  that 
the  fluorspar  business  can  not  be  successful  unless  this  grade  can  be 
marketed  at  a  profit. 

As  a  flux  fluorspar  when  applied  even  in  small  quantities  to  the 
metal  charge  in  the  furnace  liquefies  the  charge,  renders  it  readily 
fusible,  and  thus  allows  the  impurities  to  escape.  According  to 
our  information,  the  chemists  01  the  steel  companies  have  never 


534  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

found  a  practicable  substitute  for  fluorspar  as  a  flux  in  the  process 
of  making  steel  in  an  open-hearth  furnace. 

In  regard  to  the  domestic  production,  its  source  and  conditions, 
the  Government  report  for  the  year  1911  contains  a  table  showing 
the  sources  of  fluorspar  production  for  the  years  1910  and  1911,  which 
is  as  foUows : 

Tons. 

1910.  Illinois..... 27,302 

Kentucky 17,003 

Other  States 5, 122 


.   Total 69,427 


1911.  Illinois 68,817 

Kentucky 12,403 

Other  States 5, 828 


Total 87,048 

As  shown  by  the  foregoing  table,  the  mines  of  Illinois  and  Ken- 
tucky produce  more  than  92  per  cent  of  the  fluorspar  produced  in  this 
country.  These  mines  are  located  in  Crittenaen  and  Livingston 
Counties  in  western  Kentucky  and  in  Hardin  and  Pope  Counties  in 
southern  Illinois.  The  district  is  divided  by  the  Ohio  River. 

It  is  a  mining  industry  which  requires  extensive  and  costly  develop- 
ment and  an  intricate  equipment  of  mining,  crushing,  and  sorting 
machinery.  No  industry  of  this  class  offers  a  more  precarious  or 
uncertain  investment.  The  same  necessity  for  the  imposition  of  the 
duty  of  S3  per  ton  against  the  importation  of  foreign  fluorspar,  which 
rate  was  established  in  the  so-called  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  act,  exists 
to-day  even  more  emphatically  than  it  did  at  that  tune.  Encour- 
aged by  the  imposition  of  this  duty,  very  large  capital  investments 
have  been  made  to  develop  this  new  mining  industry,  especially  in 
the  States  of  Illinois  and  Kentucky. 

In  1905,  prior  to  the  imposition  of  the  duty,  the  domestic  produc- 
tion of  fluorspar  amounted  to  47,170  tons.  Just  about  this  time  the 
industry  was  struggling  to  establish  itself,  the  imported  fluorspar 
coming  from  England  and  Germany,  in  which  countries  it  existed 
in  large  quantities,  having  been  mined  for  from  100  to  200  years 
as  the  gangue  or  country  rock  in  lead-mining  operations  in  Durham 
and  Derbyshire  in  England  and  in  Saxony  in  Germany.  Only 
since  the  adoption  of  the  open-hearth  or  Bessemer-steel  practice 
has  fluorspar  become  an  important  article  of  commerce;  that  is  to 
say,  during  the  last  15  years.  This  accounts  for  the  newness  of  the 
industry.  The  foreign- product  was  the  waste  of  the  lead  mines,  and 
as  such  was  purchased  by  speculators  for  a  mere  trifle  per  ton  and 
was  shipped  to  this  country  as  ballast  until  the  passage  of  the  Payne- 
Aldrich  Act.  and  so  successfully  competed  that  in  1908  the  domestic 
production  did  not  exceed  3S.7S5  tons  annually,  a  decrease  of  about 
20,000  tons  per  year  in  three  years.  Meanwhile,  large  investments  of 
capital  had  been  made  in  the  hope  of  so  reducing  the  cost  of  production 
as  to  enable  successful  competition  with  the  foreign  product.  These 
investments  increased  the  burden  on  the  production  itself.  The 
struggle  was  hopeless.  Unsuccessful  efforts  were  made  to  have  the 
Treasury  Department  correct  the  classification  of  fluorspar,  placing 


SCHEDULE  B.  535 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

it  in  the  list  of  manufactured  or  treated  earths,  which  were  subject  to 
a  duty.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  duty  of  $3  per  ton  imposed  by  the 
present  tariff  law  the  industry  in  this  country  would  have  undoubtedly 
become  extinct,  and  all  the  money  invested  therein  would  have  been 
lost  to  the  investors.  As  it  is  to-day,  the  industry  can  not  be  said 
to  be  on  its  feet.  In  the  case  of  the  Rosiclare  Lead  and  Fluorspar 
Mines,  encouraged  by  the  protection  it  was  assumed  the  duty  would 
offer  to  the  industry,  new  investments  have  been  made  to  the  extent 
of  about  one-third  of  a  million  dollars.  It  has  been  estimated  that 
approximately  $2,000,000  of  new  money  has  been  spent  in  the  devel- 
opment of  this  industry  generally  since  the  passage  of  the  present 
tariff  law.  This  is  in  addition  to  the  original  cost  of  the  property 
and  equipment  at  the  time  the  dutv  was  imposed. 

It  will  be  seen  and  readily  understood  that  in  no  other  mining 
industry,  in  which  a  bulky  product  such  as  fluorspar  is  mined,  are  so 
many  difficulties  met  with,  and  if  to  these  conditions  are  added  the 
loss  of  any  part  of  the  present  duty  of  $3  per  ton  it  would  not  be 
possible  to  operate  the  mines  except  at  a  loss.  This  is  due  to  a  number 
of  reasons,  prominent  among  which  are  the  following: 

(a)  The  character  of  the  deposits  and  the  great  uncertainty  as  to 
the  quantity  available  from  any  mine  opening.  After  extensive 
shaft  development  and  underground  work,  it  is  very  frequently 
found  that  trie  vein  of  fluorspar  runs  out,  or  in  the  language  of  the 
miners,  "pinches  out,"  or  narrows  down  to  such  proportions  that 
mining  the  product  under  such  conditions  is  economically  impossible, 
forcing  the  owner  or  lessee  to  seek  the  mineral  in  some  other  location, 
or  subject  himself  to  an  immense  expense  in  following  up  the 
"pinched  out"  vein  in  an  effort  to  find  the  mineral  in  paying  quan- 
tities at  some  more  remote  point.  This  condition  of  course  is  expe- 
rienced in  gold  and  silver  mining,  but  in  these  instances  the  value  of 
the  mineral  sought  offsets  the  cost  of  the  extension  work,  a  condition 
which  does  not  obtain  in  the  mining  of  fluorspar,  a  coarse  material  of 
relatively  small  value  as  compared  to  gold  and  silver.  Unlike  coal 
mining,  again,  it  is  impossible  to  estimate  in  advance  what  quantity 
of  the  mineral  the  property  may  contain.  In  the  fluorspar  districts 
of  Kentucky  and  Illinois  are  numerous  examples  of  fluorspar  mines 
the  working  of  which  was  economically  impossible  for  the  reasons 
stated. 

(6)  The  mines  are  generally  located  remote  from  railway  transpor- 
tation facilities,  necessitating  all  equipment  being  brought  to  the 
property  at  the  highest  cost  of  transportation  and  the  product  to  be 
shipped  at  the  same  disadvantage.  The  precarious  condition  of  the 
industry  is  so  well  known  to  the  transportation  compares  that  up 
to  the  present  time  none  of  them  have  been  assured  of  a  sufficient 
continuous  supply  to  warrant  the  construction  of  tracks  to  the  mines. 
This  necessitates  in  the  case  of  the  Rosiclare  Lead  &  Fluorspar 
Mines  the  operation  of  an  expensive  electric  tram  to  the  Ohio  River 
and  the  use  of  a  line  of  barges  to  transport  the  fluorspar  from  Rosi- 
clare to  Shawneetown  on  the  north,  a  distance  of  38  miles,  or  to  Gol- 
conda,  12  miles,  and  Joppa,  50  miles,  on  the  south,  along  the  Ohio 
River.  In  the  case  of  the  Fairview  Fluorspar  &  Lead  Co.  the  mill 
and  mines  are  connected  with  the  river  by  a  standard-gauge  railroad 


536  TABtPP  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

track.  Railroad  cars  are  loaded  at  the  mill,  moved  to  the  river,  taken 
over  a  railroad  cradle,  and  placed  on  railroad  track  barges.  These 
barges  and  cars  are  transported  by  water  12  miles  to  Golconda,  111., 
where  they  are  delivered  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  The 
same  method  is  used  to  bring  in  railroad  cars  for  loading.  Since  the 
tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  the  railroad  track  has  been  extended  to 
three  of  the  four  shafts.  In  other  sections  of  Illinois  and  Kentucky 
the  hauls  are  made  by  wagon  from  the  mines  to  the  nearest  railway 
stations  at  a  cost  varying  from  $1.25  to  $2  per  ton. 

(c)  The  expense  of  eliminating  the  by-products,  such  as  lead  and 
zinc  ore,  which  deposits  occur  in  varying  quantities  throughout  the 
veins,  also  impurities  such  as  silica  and  calc-spar  (calcium  carbonate), 
is  very  costly  and  requires  elaborate  machinery  and  skilled  labor. 
The  lead  that  is  recovered  offsets  only  in  a  small  per  cent  the  cost  of 
its  elimination.     The  spar  must  be  freed  of  these  impurities  before 
it  is  of  any  economic  value.     Lead  entirely  destroys  the  value  of 
fluorspar  as  a  flux  in  the  manufacture  of  steel,  and  as  these  impurities 
occur  in  varying  quantities  the  cost  of  production  is  never  constant, 
but  varies  between  wide  limits. 

(d)  Fluorspar  occurs  in  veins  running  almost  perpendicular,  and 
as  the  mine  is  developed  the  product  must  be  brought  from  the  lower 
levels  at  a  greatly  increased  cost,  and  here  again  the  varying  width 
of  the  vein,  from  12  to  15  feet  in  thickness  to  nothing,  and  the  fre- 
quent occurrence   of  pinches,   make  it  impossible  to   compute  in 
advance  the  cost  of  production  in  any  shaft  or  opening. 

(e)  Many  of  the  veins  are  below  the  level  of  the  Ohio  River,  which 
flows  from  one-fourth  of  a  mile  to  three-fourths  of  a  mile  from  the 
different  shaft  openings  on  the  Rosiclare  and  Fairview  properties. 
The  seepage  of  water  through  the  overlying  strata,  at  the  time  of  the 
flooding  of  the  Ohio  River,  forces  a  complete  suspension  of  operations 
and  requires  all  available  energy  to  keep  the  mines  from  flooding.    This 
condition  is  of  regular  annual  occurrence,  but  it  frequently  happens  in 
addition,  during  a  wet  season,  that  the  breaking  through  of  a  water- 
course into  the  soft  overlying  earth  formation  causes  the  mine  to 
become  flooded  to  a  very  serious  extent. 

(jO  Extensive  areas  of  the  vein  lie  between  mud  or  earth  walls, 
which,  becoming  saturated  with  water  through  seepage,  bursts  through 
the  thin  vein  walls,  and  causes  what  is  known  as  "mud  runs,"  which 
occur  with  such  frequency  as  to  constitute  one  of  the  greatest  dan- 
gers in  operating  fluorspar  mines.  It  has  taken,  in  many  instances, 
weeks  and  sometimes  months  to  recover  from  a  mud  run,  and  has 
entailed  very  heavy  money  loss,  besides  great  damages  to  the  mines 
and  machinery. 

(g)  The  precarious  transportation  via  the  Ohio  River,  from  the 
loading  tipple  of  the  mines  to  the  railway  terminals  at  Golconda, 
Joppa,  and  Shawneetown,  is  due  to  two  causes: 

First.  The  lack  of  suflicient  water  in  the  river  channel  during  the 
dry  season  in  the  summer  months  to  permit  the  transportation  of 
heavily  laden  barges  over  the  shallow  river  bars  between  the  shipping 
point  and  the  railway  terminal,  a  condition  which  varies  in  duration 
from  a  few  weeks  to  two  or  more  months  each  year.  Owing  to  the 
effort  of  the  Rosiclare  mines  to  operate  under  these  conditions,  heavy 


SCHEDULE  B.  537 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

losses  are  sustained  by  the  sinking  of  barges  through  fouling  on  the 
river  bars. 

Second.  The  impracticability  of  shipping  fluorspar  during  the 
winter  months  of  January  and  February,  when  the  Ohio  River  is  at 
tunes  frozen  and  impassable  to  navigation. 

(Ji)  The  difficulty  of  maintaining  a  sufficient  number  of  skilled 
mechanics,  miners,  and  laborers  to  insure  the  regular  operation  of 
the  mines  is  a  serious  problem.  In  order  to  keep  a  sufficient  force  at 
the  mines  it  is  necessary  to  insure  to  the  miners  continuous  work, 
regardless  of  the  condition  of  the  water  hi  the  mines  and  the  interrup- 
tion of  transportation,  or  the  fluctuations  in  the  supply  and  demand 
for  fluorspar.  This  serious  labor  condition  is  due  to  the  isolated 
location  of  many  of  the  mines  and  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  other 
industry  in  the  neighborhood  other  than  the  fluorspar  mines.  In 
connection  with  the  labor  problem  the  following  statement  should  be 
given  full  consideration:  The  labor  used  in  the  handling  of  the 
English  fluorspar  deposits,  from  which  the  foreign  supply  used  by 
American  consumers  is  derived,  is  of  the  lowest  grade  and  is  paid  at 
a  wage  of  from  3 \  to  4  shillings  per  day.  No  skilled  labor  is  employed 
in  the  handling  of  the  foreign  product.  In  the  case  of  the  domestic 
industry  the  conditions  are  different.  The  lowest  scale  of  wages  paid 
at  the  Rosiclare  and  Fairview  mines  is  $1.65  per  day,  or  twice  as 
much  as  that  paid  to  the  English  laborers,  whereas  over  50  per  cent 
of  the  employees  at  these  mines  receive  wages  of  from  $2.50  to  $5 
per  day  as  skilled  laborers.  The  English  spar,  being  a  waste  product, 
is  treated  in  no  other  way  than  by  being  thrown  with  shovels  against 
an  inclined  screen,  after  which  the  separated  product  is  shoveled 
on  board  cars  and  dumped  into  the  holds  of  the  vessels  to  be  trans- 
ported to  this  country  as  ballast  at  the  very  lowest  freight  rate. 

The  foregoing  facts  will  give  the  committee  an  indication  of  the 
hazardous  character  of  this  mining  and  the  extraordinary  expenses 
and  difficulties  attendant  thereon.  This  fact  is  fully  recognized  by 
the  Interior  Department  at  Washington.  In  the  report  for  1910  it  is 
stated  as  follows : 

Under  the  most  favorable  conditions,  therefore,  the  margin  of  profit  can  never  be 
expected  to  be  large,  and  it  requires  exceptionally  good  management  to  conduct  any 
spar-mining  operations  profitably,  especially  in  the  Western  States. 

Conclusions. — The  exploration  for  and  the  development  of  fluorspar  deposits  under 
present  conditions  in.  the  Western  States  can  not  be  said  to  offer  attractive  profits. 
Nevertheless  the  market  for  fluorspar  is  growing,  and  where  deposits  are  found  so  situ- 
ated that  the  freight  rates  do  not  hold  down  the  price  to  a  profitless  level  and  the  cost 
of  haulage  does  not  further  wipe  out  all  chances  of  gain  the  development  of  such 
deposits  should  be  encouraged. 

The  milling  of  fluorspar  offers  rather  difficult  problems,  for,  unlike  most  ores,  the 
bulk  of  the  product  must  be  saved,  and  the  waste  which  must  be  eliminated  consti- 
tutes relatively  a  small  percentage.  In  addition,  the  separation  of  the  lead  and  zinc 
from  the  fluorspar  is  difficult,  particularly  where  such  small  percentages  of  the  former 
minerals  are  present.  Yet  it  is  essential  that  they  be  almost  completely  removed, 
since  the  presence  of  sulphide  ores  renders  the  fluorspar  of  little  value  as  a  flux  in  steel 
making. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  methods  of  mining  are  efficient  and  modern. 
Compared  with  the  cost  of  mining  other  ores  under  somewhat  similar 
conditions  in  the  Western  States,  the  cost  of  mining  is  not  high. 
Local  labor  is  employed  entirely.  The  mines  of  the  Fairview  Lead 


538  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

&  Fluorspar  Co.  and  the  Rosiclare  Lead  &  Fluorspar  Mines  together 
employ  about  500  men. 

As  to  the  sources  and  conditions  of  foreign  production  I  would  say 
that  imported  fluorspar  is  of  the  unground-gravel  grade,  is  sold 
entirely  to  the  steel  companies  as  a  flux  for  open-hearth  furnaces, 
and  comes  from  Durham  and  Derby  in  England,  where  it  is  found  in 
waste  dumps  of  abandoned  lead  mines.  This  imported  fluorspar  is  not 
mined,  but  is  screened  from  these  old  dumps,  transported  a  short 
distance  to  the  coast,  transferred  to  steamers,  and  is  brought  to  this 
country  as  ballast  at  a  nominal  freight  rate.  The  cheap  conditions 
of  producing  and  transporting  English  fluorspar  are  shown  by  the 
fact  that  in  1910  the  total  fluorspar  produced  in  England  was  valued 
at  only  $1.63  per  ton,  and  in  1911  the  value  of  this  English  fluorspar 
on  our  seacoast  was  only  $2.46  per  ton. 

The  facts  are  stated  in  the  last  report  of  the  Interior  Department 
for  1911,  and  are  as  follows: 

The  production  of  fluorspar  in  England  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  industry 
in  the  United  States,  for  practically  all  the  competing  material  is  imported  from 
that  country.  '  *  According  to  the  Official  Report  of  Output  of  Mines  and 

Quarries,  issued  by  the  British  Home  Office,  at  London,  in  1910,  there  were  61,621 
long  tons  produced,  valued  at  £20,678  ($100,629),  or  $1.63  per  ton,  as  compared  with 
42,483  tons,  valued  at  £16,029  ($78,005),  or  $1.84  per  ton,  produced  in  1909.  *  *  * 

As  is  well  known,  a  large  proportion  of  the  fluorspar  produced  in  England  is  ob- 
tained by  screening  from  waste  dumps  of  old  lead  mines.  *  *  * 

In  view  of  the  close  correspondence  between  the  estimated  cost  of  production  of 
spar  from  mine  waste  and  the  value  of  the  output  given  by  the  British  official  reports, 
it  is  evident  that  the  greater  part  of  the  fluorspar  produced  at  present  in  England  is 
obtained  from  mine  dumps. 

4.  In  regard  to  the  competitive  conditions  without  a  tariff:  Fluor- 
spar presents,  therefore,  not  a  case  of  competition  between  American 
and  foreign  labor,  but  presents  a  case  where  the  domestic  product, 
produced  under  the  usual  mining  labor  cost,  is  compelled  to  com- 
pete against  a  similar  foreign  product  where  no  labor  at  all  is  required 
to  mine  it  or  put  it  on  the  market  and  no  cost  incident  except  mere 
loading  and  transportation.     Under  such  circumstances  it  is  easy 
to  understand  why  the  domestic  product  could  not  compete  with  the 
English  product  in  the  Pittsburgh  field  or  east  thereof.     The  market 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  foreign  producer. 

The  situation  was  described  briefly  by  the  Department  of  the 
Interior  in  the  report  for  1911,  as  follows: 

Before  August,  1909,  fluorspar  was  imported  into  the  United  States  duty  free,  and 
the  full  statistics  of  importation  were  not  given  before  that  date.  Large  quantities 
of  gravel  spar,  produced  at  a  low  cost  from  the  tailings  of  lead  mines  and  from  the 
gobs  in  abandoned  mines  in  England,  have  been  shipped  to  this  country  as  ballast 
at  a  very  low  freight  rate.  The  material  thus  produced  is  high  in  silica  and  is  almost 
entirely  consumed  by  open-hearth  steel  makers.  Before  1909  spar  from  England 
competed  with  American  fluorspar  as  far  west  as  Pittsburgh  and  practically  fixed  the 
market  price  at  that  point. 

5.  Taking  up  the  matter  of  foreigner's  profit  without  a  tariff:  The 
American  consumers,  to  wit,  the  steel  companies,  did  not  receive  the 
real  benefit  of  such  conditions.     The  English  producer  or  importer 
pushed  the  price  to  a  point  just  below  a  figure  which  could  profitably 
be  met   by  the  domestic  producer.     In  view  of  these  competitive 
conditions,  the  difference  in  cost  of  production  and  transportation, 


SCHEDULE   B. 


539 


PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

the  foreign  product  was  sold  in  and  east  of  the  Pittsburgh  field  at  an 
abnormal  profit. 

6.  Situation  of  domestic  producer  without  a  tariff. — Under  such 
circumstances  there  was  no  profit  in  producing  domestic  fluorspar. 
The  result  was  a  complete  failure  to  develop  domestic  resources. 
There  was  no  increase  in  domestic  output  during  the  seven  years  prior 
to  1909.  Domestic  production  amounted  to  only  about  two-fifths  of 
domestic  consumption  in  1909. 

The  following  table  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  Department  of 
the  Interior,  1911,  and  shows  the  annual  production  of  fluorspar 
since  1905: 

1904 .  36,452 

1905 57,385 

1906 40,796 

1907 49,486 

1908 38,785 

1909 50,742 

1910 69,427 

1911 87,048 


1895 4,000 

1896.. 6,500 

1897 5,062 

1898 7,675 

1899 15,900 

1900 18,450 

1901 19,586 

1902 48,018 

1903 42,523 


About  10  years  ago,  as  the  open-hearth  method  began  to  be  more 
widely  used  by  the  steel  companies,  in  preference  to  the  Bessemer 
method,  there  arose  an  increased  demand  for  fluorspar.  This  caused 
a  large  investment  of  money  in  developing  fluorspar  properties,  and 
resulted  in  the  large  increase  in  domestic  production  in  1902,  as 
shown  by  the  foregoing  table.  This  same  increased  domestic  demand 
induced  certain  English  firms,  particularly  Blackwell  &  Sons,  of 
Liverpool,  to  secure  control  of  the  waste  dumps  of  fluorspar  in 
England,  and  unload  the  product  on  the  American  market.  This  so 
depressed  the  domestic  fluorspar  industry  that  practically  all  efforts 
to  mine  it  ceased  in  Tennessee,  Colorado,  and  Arizona.  In  the 
Kentucky-Illinois  district,  some  of  the  producers  had  made  large  in- 
vestments and,  because  of  that  fact,  continued  work  in  a  limited  way, 
in  the  hope  of  relief  from  some  source.  The  effect  of  the  importation 
was,  however,  so  disastrous  that  many  properties  were  entirely 
abandoned.  According  to  our  information,  in  Kentucky  alone  the 
number  of  mines  decreased  from  150  in  1906  to  4  in  the  summer  of 
1909. 

As  shown  by  the  foregoing  table,  the  domestic  production  from 
1902  to  1908,  inclusive,  while  slightly  fluctuating,  did  not  increase. 
In  fact  the  production  for  1908  was  about  10,000  tons  less  than  the 
production  for  1902.  This  reveals  a  total  failure  to  deveiop  the 
natural  resources  of  this  country  in  a  commodity  essential  to  the 
production  of  steel  by  present  accepted  methods. 

Taking  the  figures  given  in  the  report  for  1911,  the  average  price 
of  domestic  fluorspar  of  all  grades  prior  to  the  tariff  act  of  1909  was 
as  follows : 

Per  ton. 

1906 $5.  87 

1907 5.  81 

1908 5.  82 

1909 5.  75 

During  these  years  the  price  of  gravel  fluorspar  was  less  than 
$5  per  ton  at  the  rail  shipping  point. 


540  TABTPF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

In  view  of  the  expensive  character  of  domestic  mining,  the  unfavor- 
able location  of  the  domestic  properties,  and  the  hazards  attending 
the  business,  no  domestic  producers  ever  succeeded  in  making  any 
profit  at  such  prices.  The  Fairview  Lead  &  Flyor  Spar  Co.  and  its 
predecessor,  the  Fairview  Fluorspar  Co.,  lost  very  heavily  every  year, 
and  only  the  hope  of  ultimate  protection  through  a  fair  tariff  induced 
the  parties  interested  to  continue  operation  of  the  properties. 

The  losses  of  this  company  for  the  three  years  prior  to  1910  were 
as  follows : 

Net  loss. 

1907 $22, 146.  78 

1908 11, 712. 15 

1909 12,  283.  32 

7.  Situation  of  domestic  consumer  without  a  tariff. — Prior  to  1909 
the  steel  mills  of  this  country  were  forced  to  depend  for  an  essential 
ingredient  in  the  process  of  steel  making  upon  an  uncertain  supply  of 
foreign  fluorspar.     They  were  compelled  to  carry  very  large  reserve 
stocks  to  protect  against  interferences  with  the  foreign  supply  or  a 
sudden  increased  demand  for  finished  steel.    In  1908  the  requirements 
of  the  steel  mills  of  the  United  States  were  about  100,000  tons  of 
fluorspar.     The  total  domestic  production  of  fluorspar  of  all  grades 
was  38,785  tons.     The  domestic  production  of  gravel  fluorspar  was 
about  30,000  tons,  or  less  than  one-third  of  the  demands  of  the  steel 
mills  in  this  country. 

8.  Effect  of  present  tariff  on  domestic  production. — In  the  Kentucky- 
Illinois  district  some  of  the  large  operators  who  had  made  substantial 
investments  carried  the  properties  and  continued  work  in  a  limited 
way,  hoping  for  some  relief.     After  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of 
1909,  these  investors  on  the  faith  of  the  tariff  expended  large  sums  in 
improving  their  properties  and  increasing  their  outputs.     The  do- 
mestic output  of  all  grades  in  1911  was  87,048  tons.     No  statistics 
for   1912  have  yet  been  published.     The  domestic  production  for 
1912  will  reach  100,000  tons,  but  does  not  yet  equal  domestic  con- 
sumption. 

As  stated  in  the  department  report  for  1910,  the  price  of  domestic 
fluorspar  of  all  grades  under  the  influence  of  the  tariff  advanced  the 
first  year  from  So. 75,  in  1909,  to  S6.20,  in  1910.  Gravel  fluorspar 
during  1910  advanced  perhaps  25  cents  per  ton.  Even  at  this  price 
the  Fairview  Fluorspar  &  Lead  Co.  lost  heavily  during  that  year; 
at  this  advance  there  was  still  no  profit  for  domestic  producers,  and 
this  company  finished  the  year  1910  with  another  net  loss. 

In  1911  the  price  of  domestic  fluorspar  made  another  slight  ad- 
vance under  the  influence  of  the  tariff,  and,  as  shown  by  the  depart- 
ment reports,  advanced  to  an  average  price  of  S7.02  per  ton  for  fluor- 
spar of  all  grades. 

The  average  price  per  ton  of  domestic  gravel  spar  was  $6.03  in  1911,  as  compared 
with  §5.43  in  1910. 

As  shown  by  the  foregoing  figures,  it  is  impossible  for  domestic 
producers  to  make  any  profit  unless  the  average  price  of  fluorspar 
of  all  grades  is  approximately  $7,  and  the  average  price  of  gravel 
fluorspar  is  approximately  $6.  The  present  duty  will  just  about 

maintain  these  prices. 


SCHEDULE  B.  541 

PARAGRAPH  90— FLUORSPAR. 

The  average  price  of  domestic  fluorspar  of  all  grades  in  1912  re- 
mained practically  the  same  as  in  1911,  but  it  is  believed  by  the 
domestic  producers  that  there  is  a  slight  profit  at  the  present  prices, 
although,  as  stated  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  the  profit  is 
not  "attractive."  The  report  for  1911  summarizes  the  situation 
as  follows: 

Under  the  most  favorable  conditions,  therefore,  the  margin  of  profit  can  never  be 
expected  to  be  large,  and  it  requires  exceptionally  good  management  to  conduct  any 
spar-mining  operations  profitably,  unless  the  veins  are  thick  and  of  uniformly  good 

quality. 

The  present  duty  will  continue  to  stimulate  an  increased  domestic 
production.  The  producers  will  attempt  to  increase  profits  slightly 
by  larger  production  and  a  more  economical  distribution  of  cost.  As 
the  Bessemer  plants  are  changed  into  open-hearth  plants,  and  as 
new  open-hearth  plants  are  built,  the  requirements  of  the  steel  busi- 
ness of  the  country  will  increase,  and  the  fluorspar  production  should 
be  permitted  to  keep  pace  with  the  steel  business. 

9.  Effect  of  present  tariff  on  domestic  consumer — Has  not  increased 
cost  of  living. — The  amount  of  fluorspar  used  to  produce  a  ton  of 
finished  steel  varies  slightly,  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the 
scrap  iron  or  the  character  of  the  iron  ore  used  in  the  furnace.     Be- 
tween 800  and  1,000  pounds  of  gravel  fluorspar  are  used  on  every  heat 
of  55  tons.     At  most,  therefore,  the  cost  of  fluorspar  is  less  than  5 
cents  to  the  ton  of  finished  steel.     Under  the  influence  of  the  tariff 
the  price  of  gravel  fluorspar  to  the  steel  companies  in  this  country 
has  advanced  less  than  $1  per  ton.     The  increase  in  cost  of  fluorspar 
to  the  ton  of  finished  steel  is  approximately  one-half  of  a   cent. 
Fluorspar  is  the  smallest  item  entering  into  the  production  of  steel. 
An  increase  hi  its  cost  of  one-half  of  a  cent  per  ton  of  finished  steel  is 
insignificant  and  has  no  effect  to  raise  the  price  of  steel.     The  tariff 
on  fluorspar  has  no  effect  on  the  ultimate  consumer  of  finished  steel. 
The  steel  industry  as  a  whole  are  entirely  satisfied  with  conditions 
under  the  present  fluorspar  tariff.     With  the  possible  exception  of  a 
few  mills  at  or  near  our  eastern  seacoast,  the  steel  industry  of  the 
country  has  no  desire  to  have  the  duty  removed  or  even  reduced. 
The  ordinary  steel  company  prefers  to  pay  one-half  of  a  cent  addi- 
tional for  the  fluorspar  used  in  producing  a  ton  of  steel,  in  order  to 
be  able  to  rely  upon  an  increased  accessible  dependable  production 
of  a  standard  grade  of  fluorspar. 

10.  Competitive  conditions  under  the  present  tariff. — The  last  avail- 
able quotation  of  foreign  fluorspar  was  $7.65  per  long  ton,  f.  o.  b. 
cars  Philadelphia,  including  duty.     Adding  the  freight  rate  of  $1.60 
per  long  ton,  or  $1.20  per  short  ton,  the  basis  on  which  domestic  spar 
is  sold.     The  freight  rates  on  gravel  fluorspar  from  the  Kentucky  and 
Illinois  districts  to  the  Pittsburgh  field  are  $2.30  and  $2.10  per  ton, 
respectively.     Under  this  competition  the  price  of  domestic  fluorspar 
in  the  Pittsburgh  field  can  not  exceed  approximately  $6  per  ton  at 
the  rail  shipping  point.     As  recognized  by  the  Department  of  the 
Interior,  there  is  small  profit  to  the  domestic  producer  at  this  figure. 
The  steel  mills  east  of  the  Pittsburgh  field  can  still  purchase  then- 
requirements  of  fluorspar  at  lower  prices  than  the  mills  in  the  west 


542  TABIFF   HEADINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  90— FLTJOBSPAB. 

of  that  field,  and  the  eastern  field  is  still  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
foreign  producer. 

11.  Conditions  under  present  tariff  satisfactory  to  both  domestic  con- 
sumer and  domestic  producer. — While  the  present  duty  does  not  enable 
the  domestic  producer  to  compete  with  the  English  product  east  of 
the  Pittsburgh  field,  and  while  it  holds  prices  in  that  field  for  gravel 
fluorspar  to  a  level  of  about  $6  per  ton,  still  the  domestic  producer 
believes  that  under  present  conditions  there  is  hope  for  a  fair  profit, 
particularly  as  the  production  is  extended  and  developed.     Develop- 
ment of  production  in  turn  will  bring  better  transportation  facilities 
to  many  of  the  fluorspar  properties  hi  the  Kentucky  and  Illinois 
districts. 

The  steel  companies  in  turn  have  found  conditions  more  satisfac- 
tory for  them  during  the  past  two  years  than  ever  before  in  the  history 
of  the  fluorspar  business.  Any  possible  exception  to  such  expression 
will  be  confined  to  a  few  steel  companies  east  of  the  Pittsburgh  field, 
and  will  be  due  undoubtedly  to  the  agitation  of  the  importer.  The 
domestic  consumption  of  the  mills  east  of  the  Pittsburgh  field  amounts 
to  considerably  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  total  domestic  consumption. 

12.  Effect  of  removal  or  reduction  of  present  tariff. — As  the  complete 
removal  of  the  duty  would  only  reduce  the  cost  of  fluorspar  to  the 
steel  companies  about  one-half  of  a  cent  per  ton  of  finished  steel,  it 
will  not  reduce  the  price  of  steel  to  the  ultimate  consumer.     The 
money  invested  on  the  faith  of  the  tariff  in  the  past  two  years  to 
improve  domestic  properties  and   to  open  new  properties  will  be 
entirely  lost.     Extension  of  railroad  facilities  now  under  contem- 
plation to  certain  of  the  fluorspar  properties  will  be  abandoned. 
Domestic  production  of  fluorspar  will  decrease  at  once.     One  of  the 
most  fundamental  industries  in  the  country,  to  wit,  the  steel  business, 
will  be  left  wholly  dependent  for  an  absolute  essential  upon  an 
uncertain  foreign  supply.     The  Government  will  suffer   a   loss   of 
revenue. 

13.  Revenue  tariff- — Loss  in  revenue  will  benefit  tne  foreigner  alone. — 
The  loss  in  revenue  to  the  Government  will  not  result  in  a  propor- 
tionate reduction  of  prices  of  fluorspar.     Prices  will  drop  to  a  figure 
just  below  the  price  at  which  domestic  fluorspar  can  be  profitably 
marketed.     It  will  only  be  necessary  for  the  importer  to  drop  the 
price  about  SI  per  ton  below  the  present  price  to  drive  the  domestic 
producer  out  of  business.     The  conditions  existing  prior  to  1909  will 
return.     Two-thirds  of  the  amount  of  the  revenue  lost  to  the  Govern- 
ment will  go  into  the  pockets  of  the  foreign  producer  or  importer. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  foreigner  alone  will  substantially  benefit 
by  the  removal  or  reduction  of  the  tariff,  it  is  submitted  in  conclusion 
that  the  duty  of  S3  per  ton  on  fluorspar  is  an  eminently  fitting  appli- 
cation of  the  principle  of  a  revenue  tariff. 

In  the  earnest  hope  that  the  present  duty  on  fluorspar  may  remain 
undisturbed,  at  least  until  it  has  received  a  longer  trial,  these  facts  are 
respectfully  submitted. 


SCHEDULE   B.  543 

PARAGRAPH  90— FULLER'S  EARTH. 
FLUORSPAR  INTERESTS  OF  ROSICLARE  AND  FAIRVIEW,  ILL. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  February  1,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  MR.  CHAIRMAN:  In  connection  with  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  C.  S.  Nunn, 
on  behalf  of  the  fluorspar  people,  I  wish  to  make  the  following  statement  and  request 
that  it  be  made  an  adendum  or  appendix  to  hearings  which  have  already  been  filed 
and  printed. 

During  the  early  part  of  January,  the  rise  of  water  in  the  Ohio  River,  due  to  the  con- 
tinuous and  heavy  rains  in  the  Ohio  watershed,  so  flooded  the  country,  in  and  about 
Fairview  and  Rosiclare,  111.,  that  the  mines  of  the  Rosiclare  Lead  &  Fluor  Spar  Mines 
and  the  Fairview  Lead  &  Fluorspar  Co.  were  entirely  filled  with  water.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  estimate  the  exact  quantity  of  water  in  the  shafte  of  the  mines  and  workings, 
but  the  water  in  the  shafts  is  within  5  or  10  feet  of  the  mouth  of  the  mines.  The  shafts 
are,  as  stated  in  the  brief  filed  with  the  committee,  perpendicular,  so  that  the  mines 
are  filled  just  as  a  bottle  would  be  standing  on  its  bottom.  The  water  flowed  into  the 
Rosiclare  mines  at  the  rate  of  10,000  gallons  per  minute,  and  it  is  impossible  to  state 
1 1  >  what  extent  the  mines  have  been  injured  by  the  drowning,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  breaking  in  of  the  water  was  at  a  point  200  feet  below  the  surface,  having  broken 
1  hrough  the  soft  underlying  strata.  This  is  the  most  serious  disaster  that  has  happened 
to  our  property  during  the  last  five  years,  and  accentuates  the  precarious  character  of 
fluorspar  mining.  It  will  cost  in  money  to  dewater  the  mines  and  put  them  in  con- 
dition for  successful  operation  again  as  much  or  more  than  we  can  expect  to  make  out 
of  the  operation  during  a  year's  run  on  an  ordinary  basis  of  profit.  With  these  con- 
ditions confronting  us,  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  at  the  present  time  would  make 
economic  mining  of  this  material  impossible. 

On  behalf  of  the  mining  interests  located  at  Rosiclare  and  Fairview,  in  Hardin 
County,  111.,  I  beg  that  the  committee  will  take  into  consideration  the  effect  of  this 
great  disaster  which  has  come  upon  us  and  through  which  at  the  present  time  we  can 
not  clearly  see  our  way.  It  will  be  impossible  to  begin  pumping  out  the  mines  until 
the  Ohio  River  has  receded  to  a  point  where  it  will  receive  the  ejected  water.  There 
is  no  measure  of  how  much  pumping  will  be  necessary  to  empty  the  mines,  owing  to 
the  saturated  condition  of  the  soil  for  300  feet  below  the  surface  and  the  seepage  into 
the  mine  being  impossible  of  computation. 

On  behalf  of  these  interests,  I  therefore  pray  that  the  present  duty  of  $3  per  ton  on 
imported  fluorspar  be  not  changed. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

ROSICLARE  LEAD  &  FLUOR  SPAR  MINES, 
By  COLIN  H.  LIVINGSTONE,  Manager. 

FULLER'S  EARTH. 

THE  AMERICAN  CLAY  CO.,  AKRON,  COLO.,  WRITE  CONCERNING 

FULLER'S  EARTH. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington,  February  5,  1913. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives. 

GENTLEMEN:  Please  find  inclosed  a  letter  from  Mr.  J.  A.  Hensler,  and  also  one  from 
Attorney  E.  E.  Armour,  both  of  Akron,  Colo,  (on  file),  to  which  is  attached  a  commu- 
nication addressed  to  the  Senators  and  Congressmen  from  Colorado,  both  elect  and  in 
office,  all  of  which  are  self-explanatory. 

I  will  only  add  that  this  mine  is  in  my  district.  I  am  fully  acquainted  with  the 
plant  and  the  struggle  of  the  owners  to  make  it  a  success ;  and  I  cheerfully  indorse  what 
is  said  about  this  industry,  as  so  ably  presented  in  the  inclosuxes. 

Respectfully,  A.  W.  RUCKER. 


544  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  90— FTJLLEB'S  EABTH. 

AKRON,  COLO.,  January  9,  191S. 
Hon.  Simon  Guggenheim,  Hon.  John  F.  Shafroth,  Hon.  Charles  S.  Thomas,  Hon. 

Edward  T.  Taylor,  Hon.  Edward  Keating,  Hon.  George  J.  Kindel,  Hon.  H.  H. 

Seldomridge,  Hon.  Addison  W.  Rucker,  Hon.  John  A.  Martin,  Senators  and  Con- 
gressmen of  Colorado,  elect,  and  in  office. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  undersigned  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  a  Colorado  industry 
which  possibly  may  not  have  come  to  your  notice,  and  which  should  have  tariff 
protection  to  aid  in  its  development.  We  refer  to  the  mining  and  treatment  of  fuller's 
earth,  and  particularly  that  actually  under  way  near  Akron. 

The  American  Clay  Co.,  of  which  we  are  the  principal  stockholders,  owns  a  quarter 
section  of  land  3  miles  northwest  of  Akron,  in  this  State,  containing  very  extensive 
beds  of  high-class  fuller's  earth,  and  has  mined,  treated,  and  marketed  it,  as  best  it 
could  under  prevailing  conditions,  for  several  years.  During  that  time  continuous 
and  systematic  effort  has  been  made  by  the  company  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of 
packers  and  other  consumers  with  the  purpose  of  getting  it  on  the  market,  and  with 
the  result  that  its  superior  merit  has  been  invariably  acknowledged  by  the  packing 
companies  and  others  that  have  used  it.  This  means  many  of  the  principal  packing 
companies  of  the  United  States,  and  other  concerns. 

It  has  been  marketed  to  some  extent  in  Omaha,  St.  Joe,  Kansas  City,  New  Mexico, 
Los  Angeles,  Chicago,  Denver,  and  other  places,  and  long  ago  would  have  been  exclu- 
sively used  by  the'  main  consumers  in  this  country  had  it  not  been  for  the  very  low 
duty  on  the  foreign  product.  The  duty,  we  believe,  is  only  $2  and  $3  per  ton  on  the 
raw  and  the  treated  material,  respectively,  and  this  merely  nominal  duty  is  further 
lightened  by  being  reckoned  upon  the  long,  or  English,  ton. 

Our  principal  competition  comes  from  the  English  producers,  who,  by  the  excel- 
lence of  our  clay — proved  by  the  United  States  Government  analysis  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  packers— have  been  compelled  to  reduce  the  price  from  as  high  as 
$39  per  ton  to  as  low  as  $9  and  $10  per  ton,  in  order  to  hold  us  out  of  the  market; 

Our  factory  for  treating  the  earth  was  first  located  at  Omaha,  but  later  was  moved 
to  the  mines.  The  progress  of  the  company  was  temporarily  checked  by  fire  destroy- 
ing the  factory,  a  loss  of  approximately  $10,000. 

A  new  and  better  factory  was  immediately  constructed,  and  the  company  has  con- 
tinued its  efforts  to  manufacture  and  market  the  product  to  the  present  time,  but  has 
been  so  hampered  by  its  successful  foreign  competitors — under  the  protection  given 
to  them  by  the  light  duty  upon  their  product — that  profitable  business  for  the  Ameri- 
can Clay  Co.,  or  for  any  other  home  producer,  has  been  rendered  impossible.  The 
development  of  an  industry,  valuable  to  the  community  and  the  State  and  to  other 
localities  throughout  the  country,  has  thus  been  not  only  crippled,  but  almost  entirely 
prevented.  This  condition  can  not  improve  under  the  present  tariff. 

This  company  has  practically  an  unlimited  quantity  of  fuller's  earth,  and  could 
supply  the  American  market  for  many  years  under  suitable  tariff  protection;  but 
with  the  present  rate  of  duty,  here  is  the  difficulty.  The  packers  and  other  important 
consumers  will  not  change  their  contracts  from  the  foreign  producers  to  us — even  at 
the  same  or  a  lower  price — without  the  assurance  that  we  can  and  will  promptly  fill 
their  orders;  but  this  assurance  we  can  not  give  without  first  increasing  our  facilities 
for  mining  and  treatment,  which  we  are  not  warranted  in  doing  at  the  meager  and 
precarious  profit  now  obtaining.  We  say  meager,  because  foreign  competition  has 
already  cut  the  price  nearly  to  the  cost  of  production;  and  precarious,  because  the 
same  competition  is  able  to  cut  it  still  more,  thus  leaving  the  American  producer 
with  nothing  save  his  mines  and  factories,  silent  and  lifeless  property,  representing 
loss  of  money  and  wasted  efforts. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  company  should  the  duty  be  raised  on  the  foreign  prod- 
uct to  materially  increase  l  •  price  of  its  clay,  if  at  all,  over  what  the  packers  now 
pay  the  English  and  other  foreign  producers,  for  we  can  manufacture  and  market  it 
to  some  profit  even  at  the  price  which  they  are  now  getting;  but  we  want  and  need 
sufficient  duty  imposed  to  justify  and  make  safe  an  adequate  increase  in  our  facilities 
for  mining  and  manufacture  to  supply  the  market  demands  and  to  protect  us  against 
further  reduction  in  prices  by  the  foreigner  whereby  profit  to  us  will  be  rendered 
impossible.  We  ask  only  such  protection  as  will  make  it  reasonably  safe  to  proceed 
with  the  development  of  our  properties  and  the  increase  of  our  facilities  for  supplying 
the  market. 

We  submit  that  the  interest  of  the  principal  consumers  in  this  case  should  not  be  a 
matter  of  very  heart-rending  concern.  For  who  and  what  are  they?  Nothing  less  than 
the  great  packing  concerns  of  the  country.  Even  though  an  increased  duty  should 
add  a  trifle  to  the  price  which  the  product  now  costs  them,  would  this  cripple  their 


SCHEDULE  B.  545 

PARAGRAPH  90— FULLER'S  EARTH. 

business?  Surely  there  ia  nothing  there  to  worry  about.  Would  they  raise  the  price 
of  meat,  etc.,  and  thus  strike  the  public  another  blow?  Not  so,  for  willing  as  they  are 
to  do  the  like,  if  they  have  not  already  gone  the  limit  in  that  direction,  they  certainly 
do  not  need  this  trifling  matter  as  a  pretext  for  raising  prices. 

But  the  tariff  which  we  ask  would  hurt  neither  the  packers  nor  the  people.  On  the 
contrary,  it  would  tend  to  help  both  of  them.  Why?  Because,  if  granted,  the  prices 
of  fuller's  earth  would  remain  practically  unchanged,  thereby  eliminating  that  influ- 
ence, at  least,  from  the  trust  price-fixing  of  packer  products;  whereas,  to  deny  the 
increase  of  duty  asked,  would  dectroy  American  production,  of  which  ours  is  the  most 
active  and  promising,  and  leave  an  open  field  to  the  foreign  producers  for  supplying 
the  American  market  at  advanced  prices. 

By  reason  of  the  competition  and  threatened  competition,  which  this  company  has 
created,  they,  the  foreign  producers,  now  supply  it,  for  the  most  part,  at  from  $9  to 
$10  per  ton,  the  prices  at  which  we  can  furnish  it  if  protected  by  adequate  duty  against 
further  reduction  by  them.  With  that  competition  removed — as  it  must  be  under  a 
continuance  of  the  present  duty — will  the  foreigner  hold  down  the  price  to  its  pres- 
ent figure?  The  question  is  an  idle  one.  Freed  from  our  efforts  and  the  consequent 
menace  to  his  business,  he  will  advance  the  prices  to  their  former  heights  of  $39,  and 
more,  a  ton.  The  packing  house  companies  will  have  to  pay  the  advance  and  the 
people  follow  suit. 

The  present  nominal  duty  affords  no  protection.  It  is  wholly  useless,  save  for  a 
little  revenue  to  the  Government.  But  this  revenue  would  be  increased  rather  than 
diminished  by  a  reasonable  increase  of  duty,  for  such  increase  would  not  keep  out  the 
foreign  product.  Its  effect  would  be  to  encourage  and  increase  home  production,  and 
especially  production  in  this  State  and  by  this  company. 

If  the  duty  be  not  increased,  only  the  foreign  producer,  German  and  English  prin- 
cipally, will  be  benefited.  The  American  consumers,  be  they  packers  or  others, 
and  all  who  are  affected  by  higher  prices  to  them,  would  be  injured;  the  writers 
hereof  and  their  associates  would  be  losers.  Their  business  in  question  would  be 
ruined;  and  an  enterprise  of  great  value  to  the  community  and  to  the  State  of  Colo- 
rado would  be  destroyed. 

A  tariff  of  $10  per  ton,  or  more,  and  possibly  less,  on  the  foreign  product  would  give 
the  American  product  a  chance  to  get  into  the  market  and  not  cost  the  consumer  any 
more  than  he  now  pays  (or  at  most  but  little  more),  which,  in  any  event,  would  be 
much  less  than  he  would  be  compelled  to  pay  under  a  continuance  of  the  present  duty. 
And  thereby  further,  as  the  paramount  consideration  and  result  of  it  all,  the  American 
producer  would  be  afforded  a  living  profit. 

With  such  a  duty  we  can  confidently  assure  you,  at  least,  that  a  thriving  business 
would  be  speedily  developed  at  Akron,  Colo.,  which  would  greatly  benefit  the  com- 
munity and  be  of  very  material  value  to  the  State. 

You  will  do  a  substantial  and  merited  service  to  this  quarter  and  to  this  State,  as 
well  as  to  others,  by  raising  the  duty  on  fuller's  earth,  as  herein  suggested  and  requested. 
We  earnestly  hope  that  you  will  give  the  matter  careful  consideration  and  favorable 
action. 

Further  elaboration  by  us  is  superfluous  in  addressing  gentlemen  of  your  extended 
experience,  sound  judgment,  exalted  capacities,  and  conscientious  concern  for  the 
put) lie  good. 

With  high  regards  and  the  wish  that  you  may  all  be  eminently  successful  in  the 
discharge  of  your  several  trusts,  and  with  strong  confidence  that  you  will,  we  have 
the  honor  to  be, 

Very  respectfully  yours,  E.  E.  ARMOUR. 

AUGUST  MUNTZING. 
J.  A.  HENSLER. 
A.  R.  ARMOUR. 
F.  MUNTZINO. 

BEIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  NEW  YORK  FIEMS. 

NEW  YORK,  December  SO,  1912. 
The  WATS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS:  The  undersigned  two  firms,  L.  A.  Salomon  &  Bro.,  216  Pearl  Street,  New 
York,  and  Hammill  &  Gillespie,  240  Front  Street,  New  York,  importing  about  two- 

78959°— VOL  1—13 35 


546  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  90— FTTI/LER'S  EARTH. 

thirds  of  all  the  fuller's  earth  that  is  brought  to  this  country,  petition  your  com- 
mittee to  reduce  the  duties  on  fuller's  earth  to  the  folio-wing  level: 

Unwrought  or  unmanufactured  to  75  cents,  or  not  to  exceed  $1  per  ton,  2,240  pounds. 

Wrought  or  manufactured  to  $1.50,  or  not  to  exceed  $2  per  ton,  2,240  pounds. 

At  present  fuller's  earth  is  classified  under  paragraph  90  as  follows: 

"Unwrought  or  unmanufactured,  $1.50  per  ton,  2,240  pounds. 

"Wrought  or  manufactured,  $3  per  ton,  2,240  pounds. 

The  specific  duty  now  assessed  would  be  equivalent  on  the  wrought  article,  which 
constitutes  about  fifteen-sixteenths  of  the  total  importations,  to  from  36  per  cent  to 
50  per  cent  ad  valorem,  according  to  quality. 

The  article  is  principally  employed  in  refining  cottonseed  oil  for  edible  purposes 
and  for  compound  lard. 

The  total  importation  of  fuller's  earth  amounts  to  about  15,000  tons  per  annum; 
therefore  the  loss  in  revenue  would  be  insignificant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  reduc- 
tion in  price  consequent  to  the  reduction  in  duty  would  help  the  sale  of  it  and  would 
also  slightly  reduce  the  cost  of  edible  cottonseed  oil  and  compound  lard,  which  are 
consumed  altogether  by  the  poorer  classes  in  this  country. 

The  saving  to  the  individual  if  the  duty  on  fuller's  earth  should  be  reduced  may 
be  insignificant,  but  if  100  or  1,000  or  more  articles  should  be  reduced  in  duty  in  a 
similar  manner  the  saving  to  the  individual  will  become  an  important  item.  In 
other  words,  we  believe  that  the  reduction  in  duty  asked  for  by  us  is  in  line  with 
the  policy  to  revise  the  tariff  downward. 

The  production  of  domestic  fuller's  earth  is  more  than  twice  as  great  as  the  importa- 
tion of  the  foreign  article,  but  the  domestic  article  is  principally  used  for  refining 
oils  that  are  not  used  for  edible  purposes;  therefore  there  is  practically  no  com- 
petition between  the  domestic  and  foreign  article,  as  they  are  different  in  character. 

Besides,  the  domestic  article  sells  for  at  least  $3  to  $4  per  ton  less  than  the  imported, 
so  that  the  reduction  in  the  duty  asked  for  by  us  on  the  imported  would  not  affect 
the  sale  of  the  domestic  product. 

Respectfully,  L.  A.  SALOMON  &  BRO. 

HAMMILL  &  GILLESPIE. 


COMMUNICATIONS  REGARDING  KIESELGUHR. 

THE  STANDARD  DIATOMITE  Co., 

Eustis,  Fla.,  January  8,  19 IS. 

S.  M.  SPARKMAN,  Esq., 

Chairman  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  esteemed  favor  of  the  5th  instant,  for  which  please 
accept  my  thanks,  I  beg  to  say  the  quantity  of  kieselguhr  (diatomite)  imported  into 
this  country  is  about  3,000  tons  per  annum.  I  am  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  con- 
siderably more  than  that  amount  arrives  under  the  name  of  dried  or  burnt  clay,  or 
even  crude  clay. 

The  consumption  of  kieselguhr  in  New  York  alone  is  over  3,000  tons  per  year,  and 

would  be  much  greater  if  the  foreign  producers  could  supply  the  quantity  required. 

Trusting  I  may  have  a  favorable  report  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  and 

again  thanking  you  for  the  interest  you  have  taken  in  the  matter  and  the  courtesy 

shown,  I  remain. 

Yours,  very  truly,  CHAS.  R.  GOSTLING. 

THE  STANDARD  DIATOMITE  Co., 

Eustis,  Fla.,  January  16,  1913. 
The  Hon.  S.  M.  SPARKMAV. 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ricrrs  arid  Harbors, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D,  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  13th  instant,  the  average  price  for  the 
highest  grade  of  kieselguhr  (diatomite)  in  Xew  York  City  is  about  $80  per  ton.  There 
are  many  inferior  grades  sold  for  prices  ranging  between' $30  and  $40  per  ton.  Eighty 
dollars  per  ton  seems  a  high  price,  but  when  one  considers  that  it  requires  the  handling 
of  about  20  tons  of  raw  material  to  produce  one  ton  of  kieselguhr  it  is  explained. 
Yours,  very  truly. 

CHAS.  R.  GOSTLINO. 


SCHEDULE   B.  547 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

PARAGRAPH  91. 

Mica,  unmanufactured,  or  rough  trimmed  only,  five  cents  per  pound  and 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  mica,  cut  or  trimmed,  mica  plates  or  built-up 
mica,  and  all  manufactures  of  mica  or  of  which  mica  is  the  component  mate- 
rial of  chief  value,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

MICA. 

STATEMENT  OF  CHAELES  P.  STORES,  OF  OWEGO,  N.  Y. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  Mr.  Charles  P.  Storrs.  We 
have  assigned  to  you  10  minutes. 

Mr.  STORES.  Gentlemen,  I  want  to  ask  a  reduction  in  paragraph 
91,  relative  to  mica.  The  raw  material  is  used  by  about  10  concerns 
whom  I  represent,  who  use  it  as  a  basis  for  tneir  manufacturing 
products.  Some  of  these  concerns  are  importers  and  dealers,  but 
a  majority  of  them  are  manufacturers. 

The  reason  for  asking  a  reduction  on  the  raw  material  is  that  the 
(Duality  of  the  mica  imported  is  different  from  anything  produced 
in  this  country.  The  amber  mica  of  Canada  and  the  India  mica  is 
softer  and  of  better  cleavage  and  suitable  for  use  in  electrical  insu- 
lation, in  making  mica  lamp  chimneys,  and  in  various  other  lines. 
The  American  mica  can  not  be  used  to  produce  as  satisfactory  a 
product  for  these  purposes. 

For  that  reason  we  feel  that  the  present  ad  valorem  rate,  which 
amounts  to  about  35  or  37  per  cent  on  the  raw  material,  is  an  undue 
burden  on  this  raw  material.  We  ask  to  have  a  reduction  made  on 
the  raw  material,  making  the  duty  3  cents  a  pound  and  10  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 

We  ask  further  to  have  that  apply  to  both  uncut  and  cut  mica, 
the  cut  mica  that  is  imported  being  only  a  small  percentage — about 
15  per  cent — of  the  total  importation.  From  that  difference  hi 
the  present  act  there  is  a  great  deal  of  confusion  and  a  great  deal  of 
argument  between  importers  and  the  customs  authorities  as  to  the 
proper  classification. 

Our  proposed  amendment  would  simplify  that  and  would  introduce 
all  mica  under  the  same  classification.  Our  proposed  duty  would 
amount,  figured  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  to  19.4  per  cent  on  uncut  and 
15  per  cent  on  cut  mica. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  propose  to  change  the  classification  ? 

Mr.  STORES.  Simply  introduce  the  unmanufactured  mica  under  the 
same  classification.  I  am  making  the  point  of  putting  the  cut  mica 
under  a  lower  classification.  It  makes  little  difference  in  the  revenue, 
from  the  fact  that  comparatively  little  cut  mica  is  imported. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  proposition  is  to  leave  the  cut  mica  as  it  is? 

Mr.  STORES.  No;  leave  the  uncut  mica. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  it  is  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Yes;  the  cut  mica  grouped  together  and  a  lower  duty 
on  both  of  them. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Does  your  statement  include  ground  mica? 

Mr.  STOEES.  That  would  probably  be  considered  as  manufactured 
mica.  We  do  not  ask  to  change  the  last  part  of  the  paragraph  that 
applies  to  manufactures.  If  the  ground  mica  were  considered  a  manu- 


548  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

factored  mica  it  would  come  under  the  present  rates — 10  cents  a  pound 
and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  most  of  the  importa- 
tions come  under  the  manufactured  mica. 

Mr.  STORES.  No;  I  have  not  said  anything  about  the  manufactured 
mica.  The  cut  mica  is  not  considered  as  manufactured  mica.  It  is 
considered  as  raw  material;  but  it  now  takes  the  same  rate  as  manu- 
factured mica,  and  that  is  one  of  the  points  troublesome  to  us,  because 
the  difference  between  the  tariff  on  the  raw  material  now  and  the 
manufactured  product  is  so  slight  that  German  manufacturers  and 
English  manufacturers  of  mica  board  are  now  in  a  better  position  here 
than  the  domestic  manufacturers. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  mica  used  in  the  manufacture  of  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Making  insulating  material,  which  is  largely  used  in 
electrical  machinery.  There  is  no  other  material  that  can  take  the 
place  of  it  in  many  cases.  It  is  molded  into  various  forms  for  electri- 
cal insulation  of  all  kinds,  and'  those  are  built  up  of  scales  or  films  of 
mica,  fastened  together  with  an  adhesive  material,  which  is  then 
pressed,  molded,  and  is  used  in  various  electrical  machinery. 

Air.  JAMES.  Whom  do  you  represent  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  My  own  concern  manufactures  lamp  chimneys  of 
mica,  and  our  friends  are  representatives  of  the  electrical  insulating 
manufacturers  and  the  importers.  The  names  are  signed  to  the  brief 
which  we  submit. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  tariff  that  applies  to  that  in  which  you  are 
interested  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  That  comes  under  the  10  cent  a  pound  rate  and  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  JAMES.  On  the  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  want  that  reduced  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  We  do  not  ask  to  have  that  reduced. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  would  allow  that  to  remain  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  you  want  this  raw  material  that  goes  into  the 
manufacture  reduced  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  figures  that  you  submit  this  morning  do  not 
differentiat?  between  the  raw  mica  and  the  finished  product.  How 
much  importation  is  there  of  the  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  STORES.  I  have  not  any  figures  on  that;  I  do  not  think  there 
are  any  figures.  There  is  very  little  of  it  introduced.  I  am  not 
familiar  with  that.  It  comes  under  the  electrical  end  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  it  would  be  very  proper  to  make  some  re- 
duction on  the  finished  product,  if  we  give  you  this  reduction  on  the 
raw  material  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Personally,  speaking  for  my  own  company,  they 
would  not  object  to  that,  but  some  of  our  friends  would  feel  the 
competition  of  the  English  and  German  importers. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Would  they  be  willing  to  have  competition? 

Mr.  STORRS.  They  have  competition.  There  is  absolutely  free 
competition  in  all  this  line  in  this  country.  There  is  quite  bitter 


SCHEDULE  B.  549 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

competition  in  our  line  and  in  the  electrical  insulating  line.     The 
local  competition  will  take  care  of  that  end  of  it. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So  far  as  you  are  concerned  you  are  willing  to  have 
the  tariff  reduced  on  the  finished  product  if  a  reduction  is-  made  on 
the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  STORES.  Not  speaking  for  our  friends. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  speaking  for  yourself  ? 

Mr.  STORKS.  Yes. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  How  many  friends  do  you  include  in  that  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  About  10  different  concerns. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  You  speak  for  1  in  favor  of  reduction  and  for  10 
against  it. 

Mr.  STORRS.  I  am  not  advocating  reduction  on  the  finished  product. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  I  say  you  are  against  a  reduction  on  the  finished 
product,  and  the  10  others  are  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  STORRS.  No;  they  are  against  it. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  You  are  against  it  also  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  Yes. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Then  you  are  all  of  one  mind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  the  witness  to  say  as  far  as  he  per- 
sonally was  concerned  he  had  no  objection  to  a  reduction  on  the 
finished  product,  but  he  could  not  speak  for  his  friends.  Is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  DALZELL.  I  understand;  1  out  of  11. 

Mr.  STORRS.  If  the  committee  will  allow  me,  I  would  like  to  give 
some  of  my  time  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  can  speak  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  import  any  mica  ground? 

Mr.  STORRS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Mr.  Chairman,  while  this  matter  is  under  consideration, 
and  for  your  information  in  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  I  want  to 
call  attention  to  and  ask  the  gentleman's  opinion  about  a  matter. 
There  is  somewhat  of  a  misconstruction  of  this  paragraph.  After 
this  law  was  passed  in  1909  ground  mica  made  from  scrap,  worthless 
in  the  dump  neap,  was  made  dutiable  as  a  manufacture  of  mica,  just 
the  same  as  the  finished  piece  of  mica  for  a  stove,  automobile,  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind.  Just  the  ordinary  waste  scrap,  which  was  ground 
up  and  shipped  in  here  as  a  manufacture  of  mica.  The  Treasury 
Department  made  a  ruling  on  it,  and  ruled  adversely  against  that,  and 
admitted  it  at  a  lower  rate,  as  in  my  judgment  it  should  be. 

But  I  think  the  language  should  be  now  corrected  hi  some  way,  so 
that  it  should  not  be  construed  at  least  with  the  highest  grade  of  an 
article  made  from  sheets  of  mica. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  trouble  about  that. 
Ground  is  imported  at  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  HILL.  On  the  manufactured  article  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  No. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  the  way  it  comes  in 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  ground  is  imported  at  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  HILL   (continuing).  Because  the  Treasury  Department  have 
ruled  arbitrarily  upon  the  manufactured  article. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  suggestion  is 


550  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

Mr.  HILL,  (interposing).  I  have  not  any  suggestion  to  offer.  I  sim- 
ply desire  to  call  it  to  the  attention  of  the  committee,  and  for  that 
reason  I  asked  the  gentleman  if  he  imported  any  ground  mica. 

Mr.  STORKS.  No;  but  I  understand  that  ground  mica  is  imported 
under  the  general  division  of  scrap  materials. 

Mr.  HILL.  No;  that  is  not  right.  Some  consideration  should  be 
given  to  placing  it  somewhere,  so  that  there  would  be  no  doubt 
about  it. 

Mr.  STORKS.  Very  likely  that  would  be  held  to  come  under  the  lan- 
guage proposed  by  us,  "Mica,  unmanufactured,  cut  or  uncut."  It 
certainly  is  unmanufactured. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  agree  with  what  Mr.  Hill  has  said  about 
ground  mica  being  the  same  as  raw  material,  that  there  is  no  real  ad- 
vance in  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  STORKS.  That  is  a  legal  point  about  which  I  am  not  prepared 
to  argue. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  business  point,  are  you  familiar  with  ground 
mica  ? 

Mr.  STORKS.  We  do  not  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, could  I  give  the  balance  of  my  time  to  Mr.  Jefferson  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  not  any  time  left. 

Mr.  PETERS.  One  moment.  What  would  you  think  of  changing 
the  duty  from  a  compound  duty  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  I  am  afraid  serious  objection  to  that  would  be  raised 
by  the  miners  of  American  mica,  because  they  need  the  specific  duty. 
They  feel  that  they  do,  in  order  to  keep  the  market  upon  the  American 
mica. 

Mr.  PETERS.  If  the  duties  were  changed  from  a  compound  duty,  do 
you  think  it  should  rather  be  a  specific  duty  ? 

Mr.  STORRS.  I  think  the  specific  duty  would  be  more  equitable. 

Mr.  PETERS.  I  notice  the  importations  have  decreased  under  the 
Payne  bill  from  8768,000  in  1910  to  $540,000  in  1912.  Could  you 
enlighten  us  as  to  any  reason  for  that  ? 

Mr.  STORES.  I  do  not  understand  the  figures  that  way.  The 
figures  we  have  for  the  last  three  years  show  that  importations  have 
increased  over  1908  and  1909.  Exhibit  A  in  our  brief  is  taken  from 
House  Document  1504,  and  from  later  information  furnished  by  the 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  If  these  figures  are  correct, 
they  show  a  marked  increase  in  importations  since  the  reduction  in 
the  Payne  bill. 

Mr.  :JETEES.  I  am  referring  to  table  26  of  our  handbook. 

Mr.  STORES.  May  I  not  submit  a  memorandum  to  you  on  that 
point  later  rather  than  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  you  do  that,  and  if  you 
will  submit  it  before  5  o'clock  to-morrow  night  it  will  go  into  the 
hearings.  Of  course,  it  can  go  in  at  any  time  before  the  general 
hearings  are  closed,  but  it  would  be  published  with  some  other 
schedules  and  probably  be  lost  if  you  do  not  get  it  in  before  5  o'clock 
to-morrow  night. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  witness  is  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Burgess  and  I  are  both  here  for 
the  same  purpose,  representing  the  same  people.  Would  it  be 
agreeable  to  you  to  have  him  present  his  argument  first  ? 


SCHEDULE   B. 


551 


PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 


The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  general  thing,  we  can  not  let  witnesses  swap, 
but  in  this  case  as  you  both  come  right  together,  and  as  Mr.  Burgess 
follows  you,  you  may  swap  places  with  him. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Thank  you. 


BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  MICA  ASSOCIATION. 

JANUARY  8,  1913. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS:  The  above  association,  comprising  persons,  firms,  and  corporations  engaged  in 
business  relating  to  mica  as  manufacturers,  importers,  dealers,  and  miners,  whose 
names  are  subscribed  hereto,  respectfully  petitions  that  the  above-mentioned  para- 
graph be  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

91.  "Mica,  unmanufactured,  cut  or  uncut,  three  cents  per  pound  and  ten  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  built  up  mica,  and  all  manufactures  of  mica,  or  of  which  mica  is 
the  component  material  of  chief  value,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum 
ad  valorem. ' ' 

This  paragraph  in  the  act  of  1909  reads  as  follows: 

91.  Mica,  unmanufactured  or  rough  trimmed  only,  five  cents  per  pound  and 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  mica,  cut  or  trimmed,  mica  plates  or  built-up  mica, 
and  all  manufactures  of  mica,  or  of  which  mica  is  the  component  material  of  chief 
value,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

The  changes  asked  are  reductions  of  the  duty  as  follows: 


Present  duty. 

Proposed  duty. 

Unmanufactured    or    rough    trimmed 
mica. 
Cut  mica  

$0.05  per  pound  and  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 
$0.10  per  pound  and  20  per  cent 

f  0.03  per  pound  and  10  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 
$0.03  per  pound  and  10  per  cent 

ad  valorem. 

ad  valorem. 

REASONS   FOR   PROPOSED   REDUCTION    OF   DUTY. 

Much  of  the  mica  used  in  the  various  branches  of  industry  is  required  to  possess 
special  characteristics  which  do  not  pertain  to  any  mica  mined  in  the  United  States. 
Especially  is  this  true  in  the  case  of  electrical  machinery,  which  furnishes  the  largest 
field  for  the  use  of  mica,  there  being  no  insulating  material  that  can  be  substituted  for 
mica  in  many  electrical  appliances.  For  instance,  in 'commutators  for  motors  and 
dynamos  it  is  necessary  to  use  either  the  amber  mica  of  Canada  or  the  India  mica 
because  of  their  being  softer  than  the  American  mica  and  therefore  wearing  down 
uniformly  with  the  alternate  layers  of  copper. 

The  larger  proportion  of  the  mica  consumed  by  the  electrical  industry  is  used  in 
making  built-up  or  reconstructed  mica  in  the  form  of  plates,  boards,  rings,  segments, 
and  special  forms.  This  is  an  insulating  material  of  vital  importance  to  the  industry, 
made  of  mica  films  molded  together  with  an  adhesive  material  into  various  forms. 
The  greater  softness,  superior  cleavage,  and  elasticity  of  the  Canadian  amber  and  the 
India  mica  make  it  requisite  to  use  these  grades  to  supply  a  product  of  the  necessary 
quality. 

In  making  mica  lamp  chimneys  it  is  necessary  to  import  the  clear  India  mica,  as  no 
other  mica  can  be  obtained  that  possesses  all  the  three  requisite  qualities  as  follows: 
Absolute  clearness,  perfect  cleavage,  and  pliability,  such  that  it  can  be  rolled  into 
cylindrical  form  without  cracking. 

"The  mica  mined  in  the  United  States  has  its  own  field,  chiefly  for  use  in  stoves, 
washers  for  spark  plugs,  etc. 

Attached  hereto  and  marked  "Exhibit  A,"  and  printed  on  page  8,  is  a  statement 
obtained  from  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  showing  importations  of  mica 
for  5  years  ending  June  30,  1912,  which  includes  the  period  during  which  the  act  of  1909 
has  been  in  force,  with  the  average  value  per  pound  of  the  mica  imported  and  average 
ratio  of  the  entire  duty  paid,  figured  on  an  ad  valorem  basis.  From  this  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  duty  collected  under  the  present  act  on  mica  imported  during  the  3  years 


552  TAEIPF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  01— MICA. 

ending  June  30,  1912,  averaged  35.87  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  the  rough-trimmed  mica 
and  37.12  per  cent  on  the  cut  mica. 

It  seems  to  the  petitioners  that  this  is  too  high  a  rate  of  duty  on  raw  material,  the 
bulk  of  which  is  of  a  quality  radically  distinct  from  any  similar  native  product  and 
which  must  be  imported  regardless  of  the  amount  of  the  home  product  available. 

Your  petitioners  respectfully  submit  that  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  raw  mica  adds 
an  unnecessary  and  unreasonable  burden  of  cost  to  the  price  the  American  consumer 
must  pay  for  those  articles  that  must  be  made  of  the  grades  of  mica  that  are  not  pro- 
duced at  home. 

Attached  hereto  and  marked  "  Exhibit  B,"  printed  atpage  9,  is  a  statement  show- 
ing the  actual  imports  of  misa  for  the  past  6  years,  as  in  Exhibit  A,  but  figured  at  the 
proposed  rate  of  duty.  Our  proposed  duty,  figured  on  the  importations  of  the  last  3 
years  would  average  19.45  per  cent  on  the  uncut,  and  15.12  per  cent  on  the  cut  mica. 
The  price  of  amber  and  India  mica  has  advanced  continually  for  the  past  5  years  and 
very  rapidly  for  the  last  year  on  account  of  the  limited  supply  of  this  material  and  the 
increasing  demand  for  same. 

That  the  reduction  of  duty  asked  for  on  this  schedule  will  not  injuriously  affect  the 
production  of  American  mica  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  home  production  increased 
in  the  years  19K)  and  1911  over  that  of  1909  in  spite  of  the  reduction  of  $0.01  per  pound 
on  uncut  and  $0.02  per  pound  on  cut  mica  provided  for  by  the  tariff  act  of  1909.  This 
is  shown  by  the  statement  annexed  hereto  and  marked  "Exhibit  C,"  taken  from  the 
"  Production  of  Mica  in  1911, "  by  Douglas  B.  Sterrett,  published  by  the  United  States 
Geological  Survey. 

In  recommending  the  change  in  wording,  which  puts  cut  and  uncut  mica  under 
the  same  rate  of  duty,  we  desire  to  effect  a  simplification  of  this  provision  and  to 
eliminate  the  existing  confusion  in  classifying  imports,  which  frequently  arises  because 
of  the  varying  methods  of  preparing  mica  for  shipment  in  the  various  foreign  markets, 
and  to  prevent  the  frequent  discussion  as  to  whether  mica  should  be  classified  as 
"rough  trimmed  "  or  "cut,"  which  is  continually  arising  between  the  importers  and 
the  customs  authorities  and  which  has  often  resulted  in  litigation.  Of  the  7,276,312 
pounds  of  mica  imported  in  5  years,  as  shown  by  Exhibit  A,  84.6  per  cent  was  unmanu- 
factured or  rough  trimmed  only  and  only  15.4  per  cent  cut  or  trimmed,  so  this  pro- 
posed change  in  classification  will  affect  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  total  im- 
portation. 

It  will  be  noted  that  your  petitioners  do  not  ask  for  a  reduction  on  built-up  mica 
and  manufactures  of  mica  but  respectfully  urge  that  the  phraseology  of  the  latter  part 
of  this  paragraph  remain  as  in  the  present  act.  The  foreign  manufacturer  of  built-up 
mica  or  mica  board,  who  pays  no  duty  on  his  raw  material,  can  export  his  product  to 
the  United  States  and  pay  the  present  duty  at  a  lower  cost  than  that  at  which  the 
American  manufacturer  can  turn  out  his  product. 

Under  the  present  act  the  American  manufacturers  of  built-up  mica  pay  a  duty  on 
their  raw  mica  of  5  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent.  Therefore,  on  a  basis  of  14  cents 
per  pound  valuation  for  raw  India  mica  films,  the  total  duty  amounts  to  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  55  per  cent.  The  foreign  manufacturer  imports  built-up  mica  board  on  an  ap- 
proximate valuation  54  cents  per  pound  and  pays  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  and 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  equivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent. 

Thus  the  American  manufacturer  of  mica  products  pays  a  higher  rate  of  duty  on  the 
raw  material  which  he  must  necessarily  import  than  his  foreign  competitor  pays  on 
the  competing  finished  product.  This  difference  is  further  accentuated  by  the  lower 
labor  costs  favoring  the  foreign  competitor.  We  feel  that  it  would  be  a  serious 
injury  to  those  of  your  petitioners  who  are  engaged  in  manufacturing  to  reduce  the 
rate  of  duty  on  manufactures  of  mica  as  comprised  in  the  last  part  of  the  mica  para- 
graph. It  is  stimated  that  well  over  5,000  people  are  employed  in  working  up  mica 
into  manufactured  products  in  the  United  States,  while  not  more  than  350  or  400  are 
employed  in  mining  American  mica. 

ESTIMATE    OP   EFFECT   OF   PROPOSED   CHANGE   ON   IMPORTS. 

As  to  probable  decrease  or  increase  in  the  imports  likely  to  be  brought  about  by  the 
proposed  reduction,  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  effect  of  this  change  with  any  degree 
of  certainty. 

If  business  conditions  continue  as  favorable  as  at  present,  it  is  fair  to  assume  an  in- 
creased importation,  as  it  is  shown  by  Exhibit  A  that  after  the  reduction  of  $0.01  and 
$0.02  a  pound  in  the  tariff  act  of  1909  the  importations  for  the  three  following  yeara 
showed  considerable  increase. 


SCHEDULE  8. 


553 


PARAGRAPH  01— MICA. 

Further,  the  prevailing  upward  tendency  of  the  price  of  Canadian  and  India  mica 
will  tend  to  keep  up  the  revenue  from  this  source. 

PROPOSED  CHANGES  IN  PHRASEOLOGY. 

Our  suggestion  as  to  change  in  phraseology  applies  only  to  classification  as  between 
"rough  trimmed"  and  "cut"  mica  and  our  reasons  for  suggesting  this  change  are  set 
forth  in  a  previous  paragraph. 

SUGGESTIONS  AS  TO  ADMINISTRATIVE   FEATURES. 

This  same  change  that  we  have  recommended  in  regard  to  classification  will  tend 
to  simplify  the  administration  of  the  tariff  act  as  regards  the  paragraph  in  question. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  MICA  ASSOCIATION, 

Comprising  Chicago  Mica  Co.,  Valparaiso,  Ind.,  by  A.  W.  Pickford,  presi- 
dent; Joseph  Huse  &  Son,  Boston,  Mass.,  by  Fedr.  R.  Huse;  The 
Macallen  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  by  Louis  McCarthy,  treasurer;  Mica 
Insulator  Co.,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  by  E.  C.  Wood,  vice  president; 
Eugene  Munsell  &  Co.,  New  York  City,  by  Lewis  W.  Kingsley,  presi- 
dent; North  Carolina  Mica  Co.,  Boston  Mass.,  by  F.  R.  Huse,  treasurer; 
The  Palermo  Mica  Co.,  New  York  City,  by  W.  H.  Steinmuller,  presi- 
dent; A.  O.  Schoonmaker  Co.,  New  York  City,  by  A.  0.  Schoon- 
maker,  president;  Storrs  Mica  Co.,  Owego,  N.  Y.,  by  A.  P.  Stores, 
president;  Watson  Bros.,  Boston,  Mass.,  by  F.  L.  Watson. 
CHARLES  P.  STORRS, 

Secretary,  Owego,  N.  Y. 


EXHIBIT  A. — Mica — Imports  and  duties. 

[From  H.  Doc.  No.  1504  and  later  information  furnished  by  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.) 
UNMANUFACTURED  OR  ROUGH  TRIMMED  ONLY. 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  30— 

Rate  of  duty. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty 
col- 
lected. 

Value 
per 
unit 
Quan- 
tity. 

Ad  va- 
lorem 
rate  of 
duty. 

1908  

6  cents  per  pound  and  20  per 

Pounds. 
873,961 

$360,874 

$124,613 

$0.414 

Perct. 
34.53 

1909... 

cent. 
do  

922,686 

358,457 

127,053 

.388 

35.44 

1910  

5  cents  per  pound  and  20  per 

1,891,749 

586,268 

213,918 

.309 

36.48 

1911... 

cent. 
do... 

1,  128,  705 

359,868 

128,409 

.318 

35.68 

1912  

..    .do  

1,  343,  695 

434,254 

154,036 

.323 

35.47 

Total  

6,  160,  796 

2,  099,  721 

748,029 

CUT  OR  TRIMMED. 


1908  

12  cents  per  pound  and  20 

77,560 

$59,280 

$21,163 

$0.764 

35.70 

1909... 

per  cent. 
..  ..do  

66,723 

51,285 

18,264 

.768 

35.61 

1910  

10  cents  per  pound  and  20 

380,028 

180,859 

74,513 

.476 

4L20 

1911... 

per  cent, 
do        

480,378 

250,010 

98,040 

.524 

39.21 

1912  

do  

110,827 

101,032 

31,289 

.911 

30.96 

Total  

1,115,516 

642,466 

243,269 

Grand  total 

7,276,312 

2,  742,  187 

991,298 

554 


TABIPF   HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 


EXHIBIT  B. — Estimated  duty  on  mica  imported  for  five  years   ended  June  SO,  1912, 
figured  at  proposed  new  rate,  S  cents  per  pound  and  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

UNMANUFACTURED  OR  ROUGH  TRIMMED  ONLY. 


Esti- 

Esti- 

mated ad 

Fiscal  year  ended  June  30— 

Proposed  rate  of  duty. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

mated 

valorem 

duty. 

rate  of 

duty. 

Pounds. 

Percent. 

1908  

3  cents  per  pound  and  10  per 

873,  961 

$360,874 

$62,  306 

17.26 

cent. 

1909... 

...do... 

922,686 

358,457 

63,526 

17.72 

1910  

.    .do  

1,  891,  749 

586,268 

115,379 

19.68 

1911... 

...do... 

1,128,705 

359,  868 

69,848 

19.41 

1912  

.  ..do    

1,343,695 

434,254 

83,736 

19.27 

Total  

394,795 

CUT  OR  TRIMMED. 


1908  

3  cents  per  pound  and  10  per 

77,560 

$59,280 

$8,255 

13.92 

1909 

cent. 
.  ..do  

66,723 

51,285 

7,130 

13.90 

1910...           

...do... 

380,028 

180,859 

29,487 

16.33 

1911 

..do  

480,378 

250,010 

39,  412 

15.76 

1912                  

do  

110,827 

101,032 

13,428 

13.28 

Total  

97,  712 

Grand  total  

492,507 

EXHIBIT  C. — Production  of  mica  in  the  United  States,  1909-1911. 

[From  "The  Production  of  Mica  in  1911,"  by  Douglas  B.  Sterrett,  Department  of  the  Interior,  United 

States  Geological  Survey.] 


Rough  trimmed  and 
cut  mica. 
Year. 

Scrap  mica. 

Total 
values. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Pounds. 
1909             1,  809,  582 

$234,  482 
283,  S32 
310,  254 

Short  tons. 
4,090 
4,065 
3,512 

$46,047 
53,265 
45,550 

$280,529 
337,097 
355,804 

1910  2,  476,  190 

1911           1,887,201 

SUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEF  SUBMITTED   BY  THE  MICA  ASSOCIATION  JANUARY  9,   1913. 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AXU  MEANS,  House  of  Representatives. 

SIRS:  Referring  to  the  comment  of  Mr.  Peters  during  our  hearing  on  January  8  as 
to  quantity  of  imports  of  mica  during  the  last  three  years,  we  beg  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  comparison  made  in  our  original  brief  is  based  on  the  fiscal  years 
ending  June  30,  1908  and  1900.  As  compared  with  those  two  years,  the  imports  of 
mica  for  each  fiscal  year  since  the  reduction  in  tariff  made  by  the  Payne  bill  have 
been  larger  than  the  imports  in  either  1908  or  1909.  Figures  given  in  our  original 
brief.  Exhibit  A.  are  divided  under  the  headings  "  Unmanufactured  or  rough  trimmed 
only"  and  "Cut  or  trimmed." 

Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  MICA  ASSOCIATION, 
CHARLES  P.  STORRS,  Secretary. 


SCHEDULE   B.  555 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  S.  H.  BROWN,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  ASHE- 
VILLE  MICA  CO.,  ASHEVILLE,  N.  C. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Vance  Brown,  who  requested  per- 
mission to  make  a  statement  before  you  to-day,  has  been  detained 
at  home  on  account  of  sickness,  and  he  has  requested  me  to  either 
read  or  present  this  brief  in  his  stead,  with  your  permission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  do  so.     What  is  your  name  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Hubbard  D.  Brown.  I  am  a  brother  of  Mr.  Vance 
Brown. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  informed  about  the  question  which  is 
being  presented  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  a  practical  mica  man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right. 

Mr.  Brown  thereupon  read  the  statement  of  Mr.  Vance  Brown,  as 
follows: 

ASHEVILLE,  N.  C.,  January  8,  191S. 
CHAIRMAN  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  have  been  given  to  understand  that  the  importers  of  mica,  both  the 
dealers  and  large  users,  expect  to  take  advantage  of  the  declared  intention  of  the 
Democratic  majority  to  lower  the  tariff,  and  at  this  time  ask  a  substantial  reduction 
on  pure  mica,  and  that  built-up  mica  be  left  as  it  is.  They  will  ask  either  that  mica 
be  put  upon  a  straight  ad  valorem  basis  instead  of  as  now  a  specific  5  cents  and  10  cents 
per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  or  for  such  a  change  in  the  wording  that  either 
way  there  will  be  a  very  substantial  reduction  in  the  amount  of  duty  collected  on  what 
they  import,  but  not  on  what  they  manufacture. 

While  we  are  also  importers  of  mica,  we  are  the  largest  handlers  of  the  domestic 
product,  and  the  miners  of  this  section  rather  look  to  us  to  put  forward  their  protest 
against  any  change  in  the  present  schedule  on  this  article. 

The  Payne-Aldrich  bill,  on  the  request  of  the  importers,  made  a  reduction  of  20  per 
cent  on  the  specific  duties,  so  that  it  is  felt  that  at  this  time  it  is  not  necessary  to  again 
lower  it. 

The  production  of  mica  in  this  section  has  gradually  increased.  The  United  States 
report  for  1912  is  not  yet  available,  but  it  will  show  a  substantial  increase  from  this 
section  over  1911,  possibly  25  per  cent.  This  mica  is  principally  produced  by  hundreds' 
of  small  miners  and  bought  from  them  by  several  dealers  who  manufacture  it  into 
various  shapes  for  the  consumer.  The  wage  paid  at  the  mines  is  from  $1.25  to  $2  per 
day.  In  the  dealer's  factory,  where  it  is  worked  up,  the  wages  are  from  75  cents  to 
$2.50  per  day.  On  the  whole  the  average  in  both  would  be  somewhere  near  $1.50  per 
day. 

Practically  all  the  mica  imported  that  comes  in  competition  with  this  product  is 
received  from  India,  much  of  it  by  way  of  London. 

In  India  the  wage  scale,  in  the  production  and  working  up  of  the  raw  material  into 
the  various  grades  for  sale  to  the  importer  in  this  country,  runs  from  10  to  20  cents  per 
day,  so  that  in  a  free  market  it  is  certain  that  the  production  of  this  section  ceuld  not 
compete  with  this  Indian  production.  While  it  is  true  that  at  the  present  time, 
because  of  the  demand  being  greater  than  the  visible  supply,  the  price  of  this  Indian 
product  has  advanced  very  considerably  in  the  past  year,  this  condition  will  be  bound 
to  increase  the  output  both  there  and  here,  and  such  advance  should  be  taken  into 
consideration  only  over  a  series  of  years  the  same  as  a  tariff  act  would  effect. 

In  reference  to  the  request  that  the  specific  duty  be  removed:  Taking  the  1911 
figures  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey  report,  the  specific  duty  should  have 
been  about  $78,000  and  the  ad  valorem  $100,000,  and  it  might  be  argued  that  the  plac- 
ing of  ad  valorem  at  40  per  cent  would  raise  even  more  revenue,  but  inasmuch  as  the 
greater  bulk  in  weight  is  of  the  small,  less  valuable  pieces,  even  allowing  nothing  for 
undervaluation  that  might  be  practiced,  it  would  be  found  that  40  per  cent  ad  valorem 
duty  would  neither  raise  nearly  so  much  revenue  nor  would  it  give  nearly  so  much 
protection  to  the  domestic  producer  as  the  present  schedule. 


556  TABTFF   HBABING8. 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

In  respect  to  any  change  of  wording:  It  might  be  changed  to  make  it  conform  more 
to  actual  conditions,  although  the  practices  of  the  customs  authorities  are  now  well 
fixed  on  the  meaning  of  the  present  wording.  If  any  change  is  made  it  should  leave 
it  so  that  without  any  question  cut  or  very  closely  trimmed  mica  should  pay  about 
twice  as  much  specific  duty  as  the  uncut  or  roughly  trimmed  does,  because  in  cutting 
to  shape  or  size,  or  even  trimming  closely  to  expected  pattern,  there  will  be  removed 
about  naif  the  weight  from  the  roughly  trimmed  sheets.  If  both  cut  and  uncut  were 
to  pay  the  same  specific  duty,  most  of  the  cutting  would  be  done  in  India  or  Europe 
where  the  labor  is  the  cheapest,  and  the  net  result  in  revenue  from  duty  collected  of 
the  importer  would  be  practically  one  half  the  present  duty.  Any  change  in  the  pres- 
ent wording,  except  it  be  in  respect  to  the  raising  or  lowering  of  the  specific  or  ad 
valorem  duty,  might  easily  make  a  great  difference  in  the  amount  of  duty  collected 
and,  therefore,  should  only  be  done  after  fully  advising  with  those  who  understand 
the  preparation  of  mica  for  the  market  and  who  thus  can  best  judge  the  effect  of  any 
new  wording  both  in  respect  to  revenue  to  the  Government  and  protection  to  the 
domestic  producer.  Most  of  the  importers  and  largest  users  of  mica  are  manufacturers 
of  built-up  mica.  Of  this  very  little  is  imported.  The  specific  duty  on  built-up 
should  be  more  than  on  the  unmanufactured,  because  of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
labor  in  building  up,  but  as  this  material  contains  considerable  binder  (shellac  or 
like  material)  the  duty  has  to  be  paid  on  this  weight  of  binder  also  and  thus  the  pro- 
tection is  greater  to  the  mica  in  this  form  than  is  the  case  with  the  cut  form,  which 
is  pure  mica  like  the  uncut. 

The  cost  of  producing  mica  in  India  should  be  from  one-fifth  to  one-eighth  of  the  cost 
in  this  country.  The  present  duty  gives  protection  to  only  a  small  part  of  this  differ- 
ence in  cost.  If  protection  was  used  as  a  basis  on  which  to  draw  a  tariff  on  mica,  the 
present  rate  would  be  multiplied  many  times.  If  revenue  is  to  be  the  basis,  there 
could  with  reason  still  be  an  increase  on  the  present  schedule.  We  as  importers  our- 
selves are  not  particularly  anxious  for  an  increase,  but  we  do  know  that  the  domestic 
producer  is  already  poorly  enough  prepared  to  meet  the  competition  he  already  has, 
without  any  part  of  the  slight  protection  now  afforded  being  taken  away. 

We  ask,  therefore,  that  any  change  of  wording  be  closely  investigated  and  that  there 
be  no  further  reduction  made  either  in  the  specific  or  ad  valorem  duties,  the  20  per  cent 
reduction  that  was  made  two  years  age  being  all  the  domestic  producers  should  be  asked 
to  stand. 

Trusting  that  you  will  give  serious  attention  to  the  claim  of  our  domestic  producers, 
we  are, 

Respectfully,  ASHEVILLE  MICA  Co., 

Per  W.  VANCE  BROWN. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions?  [After  a  pause.]  That 
is  all. 

Mr.  BROWN .  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  with  me  a  couple  of  pamphlets 
which  I  do  not  desire  to  read,  but  I  would  like  to  have  them  submitted 
for  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  want  them  printed  hi  the  record? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right;  they  will  be  printed. 

STATEMENT  OF  \V .  VANCE  BROWN,  OF  THE  ASHEVILLE  MICA  Co.,  AND  OP  B.  C. 
GRINDSTAFP,  OF  THE  GREAT  SOUTHERN  MICA  Co.,  OF  ASHEVILLE,  N.  C.  COM- 
PARATIVE COST  OF  MINING  AND  PREPARING  MICA  IN  INDIA  AND  IN  THE  UNITED 

STATES. 

[Respectfully  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate, 

April,  1909.] 


We  have  each  had  about  20  years'  experience  in  the  mica  industry  in  the  United 
States. 

The  mica-bearing  veins  or  deposits  are  about  the  same  in  the  two  countries,  both 
producing  the  Muscovite  species  of  mica,  and  they  produce  practically  all  the  world's 
supply  of  this  species. 

The  blocks  of  mica  are  found  in  veins  of  feldspar  irregularly,  both  in  distance 
apart  from  one  another  and  in  size,  and  as  the  size  controls  the  value,  the  value  of 
production  i-  irregular. 


SCHEDULE   B.  557 

PARAGRAPH  91- MICA. 

The  domestic  mica  is  equal  in  quality  with  the  India  varieties,  both  for  use  in  stoves 
and  for  insulation.  Splittings  made  from  it  are  as  good  for  built-up  plate  as  the  split- 
tings made  from  India  mica. 

India  has  the  advantage  of  larger  developed  mines,  which  means  a  relatively  lower 
operating  cost. 

The  average  price  of  labor  in  India  is  15  cents  per  day;  in  the  United  States  the 
average  price  is  $1.50  per  day  for  this  class  of  work. 

Dividing  the  production  of  mica  at  the  mine  into  two  classes: 

(1)  Unsound  pieces  that  are  only  fit  for  grinding  purposes  and  which  is  worth  $8 
per  ton  at  the  mine. 

(2)  Small  and  large  untrimmed  sheets  varying  from  what  will  cut  in  sound  mica 
a  1-inch  disk  to  that  large  enough  to  cut  upward  of  48  square  inches. 

This  will  divide  the  production  into  about  two  equal  parts  in  weight. 

It  is  sold  by  the  miner  in  several  grades  classed  according  to  size  that  can  be  cut 
out  of  it  in  sound  material,  the  small  being  worth  less  than  the  average  price  of  the 
output,  while  the  larger  sheets  are  worth  very  much  more  than  the  average.  There  is 
more  in  weight  of  the  smaller  sheets  than  of  the  larger. 

Allowing  as  mining  expense  the  labor  of  splitting  the  blocks  and  sorting  the  pieces 
into  various  grades,  according  to  their  size.  We  can  state  that  the  average  cost  of 
producing  the  untrimmed  sheet  mica  class  will  be  12  cents  per  pound  in  the  United 
States. 

Seventy-five  per  cent  of  this  12  cents  per  pound  cost  is  paid  for  labor  alone.  Thus 
9  cents  per  pound  is  the  labor  cost. 

We  have  no  data  on  which  to  base  the  total  cost  of  mining  per  pound  in  India  of 
untrimmed  sheet.  But  allowing  that  75  per  cent  of  their  cost  was  labor,  as  it  is  here, 
and  their  labor  at  one-tenth  the  cost  of  the  same  labor  in  the  United  States,  as  it  is, 
and  granting  that  its  efficiency  is  only  one-half,  we  have  the  fact  that  their  labor 
cost  per  pound  will  be  one-fifth  of  9  cents,  i.  e.,  1$  cents  per  pound,  and  the  total 
mining  cost,  2|  cents  per  pound,  for  untrimmed  sheet  mica  mined  and  split  ready 
for  the  preparation  it  will  get  before  it  gets  to  the  consumer. 

This  is  a  difference  in  labor  cost  alone  of  over  7  cents  per  pound,  and  in  total  cost 
of  mining,  of  over  9  cents  per  pound,  in  favor  of  the  India  producer. 

The  cost  of  preparing  the  untrimmed  sheet  into  the  shape  or  condition  the  con- 
sumer requires  it  is  another  operation,  taking  another  set  of  hands  and  not  subject 
to  the  irregularities  of  producing  the  mica  from  the  mine. 

It  means  cutting,  punching,  or  trimming  the  untrimmed  sheet  to  any  iregular  shape 
or  pattern  required  by  the  consumer,  or  splitting  it  to  less  than  five  one-thousandths  of 
an  inch  in  thickness.  None  of  this  preparation  changes  the  character  of  the  mica  itself, 
nor  does  it  put  any  other  substance  or  material  to  it.  It  only  removes  a  part  because 
it  is  unsound,  or  removes  what  is  necessary  to  shape  the  piece  to  such  pattern  as  is 
required  by  the  consumer.  The  act  of  splitting  only  opens  up  the  natural  laminations. 

Some  of  this  preparation  may  be  done  by  machinery,  but  no  machine  has  yet  been 
invented  that  will  prevent  the  further  spending  of  12  cents  per  pound  average  on 
•  each  pound  of  mica  prepared  for  the  consumer.  In  doing  this  preparation  it  will 
take  on  an  average  3£  pounds  of  untrimmed  sheet  to  make  1  pound  of  net  mica  as 
the  consumer  requires  it,  so  that  in  the  United  States  we  have  an  average  cost  of 
preparing  mica  as  follows: 

12  cents  per  pound  average  cost  of  mining. 

30  cents  for  waste  in  preparation — 3£  pounds  for  1. 

12  cents  per  pound  for  labor  doing  it. 

Making  54  cents  the  total  cost  of  1  pound  of  prepared  mica. 

Whereas  under  the  conditions  in  India  we  have: 

2$  cents  per  pound  average  cost  of  mining. 

6  cents  for  waste  in  preparation— 3£  pounds  for  1. 

1\  cents  per  pound  for  labor — \  of  United  States  labor. 

Making  11  cents  the  total  cost  of  1  pound  of  prepared  mica. 

A  difference  in  average  cost  of  mica,  prepared  for  the  consumer,  of  43  cents  per 
pound  in  favor  of  India. 

Manufacturing  mica  plate  is  entirely  a  separate  operation  again,  and  is  not  consid- 
ered in  the  cost  hereinbefore  stated.  The  thinly  split  laminae  are  laid  flat  with  edges 
overlapping,  and  on  this  surface  a  mixture  of  shellac  is  spread.  More  of  the  split 
laminae  are  placed  on  this,  and  again  more  shellac,  and  so  layer  upon  layer,  until  a 
thick  sheet  is  built  up,  36  inches  square,  which  when  pressed  heavily  and  baked  makes 
a  solid  piece  of  insulating  material .  This  is  built-up  plate,  known  under  several  names, 
as  micanite,  micabeaton.  etc. 


558  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  01— MICA. 

As  a  fact  the  miner  in  India  has  nearly  prepared  his  mica  for  the  consumer  as  well 
-s  mining  it.  And  yet  on  nearly  all  the  imported  mica  there  has  been  o/ily  paid  6 
cents  specific  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  the  Dingley  bill. .  See  United  States 
report  for  1907. 

The  average  valuation  of  imported  mica  in  1907  was  37  cents  per  pound,  so  that  the 
average  cost  to  the  importer  for  his  mica,  duty  paid,  was  51  cents  per  pound,  against 
the  cost  of  the  domestic  of  54  cents  per  pound. 

The  average  selling  price  of  the  India  mica  (duty  not  paid)  being  37  cents  per 
pound — as  per  United  States  report,  1907 — and  their  cost  11  cents,  the  miner  in  India 
has  had  an  average  profit  of  26  cents  per  pound. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  the  domestic  miner  has  been  only  able  to  work  in  a  small  way, 
or  if  larger  operations  were  attempted  they  were  unsuccessful,  except  in  extraordinary 
rich  veins. 

The  India  miner  has  always  had  plenty  of  margin  in  which  to  develop  his  mines, 
and  thus  lessen  his  cost,  while  the  United  States  miner,  with  exactly  as  good  mica, 
has  been  strangled. 

If  the  domestic  miner  were  put  on  equal  terms  with  the  India  miner  by  a  higher 
specific  duty  per  pound  on  all  mica  that  has  been  prepared  for  the  consumer  beyond 
the  untrimmed  state,  the  domestic  mines  would  soon  be  put  in  such  shape  that  they 
could  stand  as  well  as  any  other  industry.  And  with  the  machinery  and  larger  oper- 
ation, lower  the  cost  of  mining  much  below  what  it  is  now,  and  give  the  consumer  hia 
product  at  about  the  present  market  rates. 

Some  protection  is  needed  against  the  phlogopite  species  of  mica  (Canadian  amber), 
because  it  is  mined  from  soft  rock  and  is  a  soft  mica,  therefore  less  costly  to  work  than 
the  muscovite  species. 

An  equal  duty  should  be  put  on  built-up  plate  as  on- thin  split  sheets,  so  that  the 
building  up  will  be  done  in  this  country  rather  than  in  Europe  or  India. 

With  these  differences  in  cost  between  the  production  of  foreign  mica  and  the 
domestic  as  shown,  and  asking  only  that  the  domestic  miner  be  put  on  the  same  basis 
as  the  foreign  miner,  we  insist  that  we  must  have  a  very  much  higher  specific  duty 
than  heretofore  on  muscovite  mica  that  has  been  prepared  for  the  consumer  beyond 
the  untrimmed  sheet  stage.  On  the  phlogopite  species  mined  in  Canada  we  do  not 
require  any  higher  duty  than  we  have  heretofore  had. 

The  Dingley  Act  made  two  classes  of  mica,  using  the  words  "rough  trimmed"  for 
the  class  on  which  6  cents  per  pound  specific  was  imposed,  and  the  words  "cut  or 
trimmed  "  for  the  class  on  which  12  cents  per  pound  specific  was  imposed.  This  has 
caused  the  Treasury  officials  and  the  domestic  miners  much  trouble,  for  it  has  been 
difficult  to  determine  where  rough  trimmed  ended  and  cut  or  trimmed  commenced. 
The  India  miner  trimmed  his  mica  closer  and  closer  to  get  rid  of  the  more  weight,  and 
yet  there  was  practically  none  coming  in  under  the  higher  classification.  Then  the 
Treasury  officials  took  notice,  and  a  case  was  tried  lately  in  New  York  (decision  No. 
20677),  and  the  importer  lost.  But  further  litigation  must  be  gone  into  if  the  same  word- 
ing is  used  and  step  by  step  the  question  decided.  What  constitutes  rough  trimming 
and  what  cut  or  trimmed?  The  word  "thumb"  should  be  substituted  for  the  word 
''rough,"  and  thus  make  a  clear  distinction  between  the  classes. 

For  these  reasons  we  suggest  the  following  wording  for  the  mica  schedule  in  the 
tariff  act: 

"Mica,  unmanufactured  or  thumb  trimmed  only,  6  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  Muscovite  species  of  mica,  when  trimmed  or  cut  or  split  to  less  than  five- 
thousandths  of  an  inch  in  thickness,  25  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Phlogopite  species  of  mica,  when  trimmed  or  cut  or  split  to  less  than  five-thousandths 
of  an  inch  in  thickness.  10  cent?  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Mica  plate 
or  built  up  mica,  and  all  manufactures  of  mica  or  of  which  mica  is  the  component 
material  of  chief  value.  25  rents  per  pound  and  30  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

If  this  were  done  scores  of  mines  will  be  started  at  once  mining  mica  in  this  country. 
Thousands  of  hands  will  be  employed  in  mining  and  as  many  more  will  be  put  to 
work  trimming,  cutting,  and  generally  preparing  the  product  for  the  consumer. 

W.  VANCE  BROWN. 
B.  C.  GRINDSTAPP. 

MICA. 

To  tie  roU./i-tnrs  of  tie.  sivtrnl  ports  irJxre  mica  is  being  entered  for  importation: 

We  report  fully  a?k  that:  you  revise  the  system  of  classing  mica  for  duty  as  it  has 
for  sonic  timo  IMHMI  practiced,  and  for  your  assistance  we  lay  before  you  the  following 
tacts  and  argument: 


SCHEDULE   B.  559 

PARAGRAPH  91     MICA. 

Generally  speaking,  mica  is  being  imported  in  the  following  forms: 

(1)  Variously  trimmed  with  sickle  knife,  shears,  or  machine,  irregular  in  shape, 
sometimes  nearly  rectangular. 

(2)  Splittings  or  films. 

(3)  Cut  to  rectangular  or  some  other  definite  shape. 

(4)  Built-up  plate  in  various  forms. 

There  are  some  other  forms  in  which  mica  is  being  imported,  but  these  will  cover 
the  bulk  of  it  and  they  are  all  we  now  wish  to  call  your  attention  to. 

The  trimming  of  mica  has  been  carried  to  such  a  point  during  the  past  few  years 
that  there  is  now  practically  no  "unmanufactured"  nor  "rough  trimmed  only"  mica 
imported  into  the  United  States. 

The  Dingley  Act  read:  "Mica,  unmanufactured  or  rough  trimmed  only,  six  cents 
per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  mica,  cut  or  trimmed,  twelve  cents 
per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

The  new  act  reads:  "Mica,  unmanufactured,  or  rough  trimmed  only,  five  cents  per 
pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  mica,  cut  or  trimmed,  mica  plates  or 
built-up  mica,  and  all  manufactures  of  mica  or  of  which  mica  is  the  component  mate- 
rial of  chief  value,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

So  that  the  wording  is  practically  the  same  in  both  laws  for  the  "unmanufactured 
or  rough  trimmed  only"  class. 

The  practice  has  been  to  put  under  the  lower  classification  all  imported  mica  except 
such  as  was  cut  to  some  definite  size  or  shape.  Under  this  rule  there  was  even  yet 
much  evasion  of  the  higher  classification  by  mixing  a  great  number  of  sheets  cut  to 
various  sizes  and  packing  them  loosely  in  the  case,  or  by  marking  on  the  edge  of 
each  piece  a  line  to  indicate  it  would  yet  be  cut  again  to  make  it  a  size  mentioned 
in  standard  lists  that  are  used  by  the  trade.  This  matter  came  before  the  Board  of 
General  Appraisers  in  case  No.  20677 — Protest  No.  315568 — and  was  decided  against 
the  importers.  But  this  only  settled  a  very  extreme  case,  and  we  claim  that  there 
is  yet  much  mica  coming  in  that  is  so  trimmed  and  manufactured  that  it  should  pay 
the  highest  rate  of  duty.  To  better  explain  this  we  describe  briefly  the  process  of 
manufacturing  mica. 

When  mica  is  first  mined  put  it  is  in  rough  blocks  of  various  shapes,  size,  and  thick- 
ness. These  blocks  are  split  to  about  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  in  thickness  and  the 
sheets  sorted  according  to  what  size  can  be  cut  out  of  each  piece  in  sound  glass-like 
material.  On  the  edge  of  each  piece  is  some  unsound  material  that  is  only  fit  for 
grinding  into  ground  mica,  and  it  is  usual  for  the  miner  to  at  least  roughly  trim  this 
off  the  piece  before  it  is  packed  for  sale  to  the  dealer  in  or  the  consumer  of  the  mica. 
Some  miners  further  advance  their  product  to  the  condition  used  by  consumer  before 
they  dispose  of  it.  Understand  that  this  trimming  is  first  of  all  done  to  get  rid  of  the 
unsound  material  on  the  edge,  but  the  closer  it  is  trimmed  to  any  desired  or  expected 
pattern  the  less  waste  there  will  be  in  cutting  it  to  the  desired  pattern,  and  the  less 
specific  duty  there  will  be  to  pay  on  it.  And,  therefore,  very  properly  in  both  the 
new  and  old  tariff  law  the  lower  classification  read  ' '  unmanufactured  or  rough  trimmed 
only,"  and  tie  higher  classification  "cut  or  trimmed,"  not  "cut  and  trimmed,"  as 
the  appraisers  worded  it  in  their  decision  in  case  No.  20677.  So,  then;  the  difficulty 
lies  in  distinguishing  between  what  is  "rough  trimmed  only"  and  what  is  "trimmed." 
It  may  be  difficult  for  the  inexperienced  to  draw  the  line  closely  between  them 
under  certain  conditions,  but  as  the  bulk  of  the  imported  mica  is  now  prepared,  it  is 
easy  to  see  it  is  much  more  closely  trimmed  than  could  be  termed  "rough  trimmed 
only." 

We  claim  that  practically  all  the  Indian,  and  much  of  the  Canadian  that  is  imported, 
is  closely  trimmed;  very  far  beyond  what  could  reasonably  be  called  "rough  trimmed 
only. ' '  And  this  is  the  case  whether  it  has  been  trimmed  with  the  sickle  knife,  shears, 
or  machine.  In  every  case  they  are  trimming  it  so  closely  that  there  is  little  waste 
getting  it  to  any  desired  shaped  pattern  or  rectangular  size,  and  it  should  be  classed  as 
"trimmed' '  and  pay  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  Imported  trimmed  mica  is  not  sold  in 
the  United  States  as  rough  trimmed,  but  as  closely  knife  trimmed  or  closely  shear 
trimmed;  the  importers'  catalogues  usually  state  "closely  trimmed."  In  the  London 
markets,  where  much  of  the  Indian  product  is  sold  for  export  to  the  United  States,  it  is 
usually  called ' ' uncut' '  when  sickle  trimmed ;  but  also ' '  trimmed. ' '  "square  trimmed,' ' 
"Calcutta  trimmed,"  "circular  trimmed,"  and  other  terms  to  designate  the  kind  of 
trimming  that  has  been  done.  But  it  is  all  "trimmed"  until  it  reaches  the  United 
States  customs,  where  it  now  passes  as  "rough  trimmed  only."  The  distinction 
between  roughly  trimmed  and  trimmed  is  well  known  and  recognized  among  both  the 
domestic  and  foreign  producers,  and  why  should  it  not  be  recognized  when  classing 
mica  for  duty? 


560  TABIFF   HEARINGS.  . 

PABAGBAPH  91— MICA. 

We  ask  that  all  this  trimmed  mica  (embraced  under  (1)  on  first  page)  as  now  pre- 
pared, be  placed  in  the  higher  class  and  pay  10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem  duty,  until  the  foreign  producer  leaves  his  mica  in  a  less  advanced  condition. 

The  next  step  in  the  manufacture  of  mica  is  to  take  these  trimmed  pieces  and  either: 

(a)  Split  them  with  a  hand  knife  to  less  than  two-thousandths  of  an  inch  in  thickness 
into  what  are  termed  "films"  or  "splittings."     Several  machines  have  been  tried  for 
this  work,  but  so  far  they  have  not  been  so  satisfactory  as  the  hand  work,  and  the  bulk 
of  it  is  yet  done  with  hand.    Understand,  it  is  trimmed  first  and  then  split.    Before 
good  marketable  splittings  can  be  manufactured  from  the  sheet,  it  is  essential  that 
each  piece  be  closely — not  roughly — trimmed.    The  law  says  "rough  trimmed  only" 
(notice   the  word  "only")  or   "unmanufactured"  in  the  lower  classification,  and 
"trimmed"  and  "all  manufactures  of  mica"  in  the  higher  classification.    So  here 
we  have  a  case  where  there  can  be  no  question  of  how  much  trimming  has  been  done, 
for  it  is  also  manufactured  (split).    The  material  (films  or  splittings)  is  not  "unmanu- 
factured "  nor  "rough  trimmed  only,"  and  it  is  "trimmed,"  and  it  is  "manufactured." 
Some  years  ago  trimming  before  splitting  was  not  demanded  by  the  trade,  and  we 
imagine  it  was  then  the  evasion  first  began.    They  used  to  take  sheets  that  had  been 
trimmed  very  little,  if  at  all,  in  fact  were  roughly  trimmed  if  at  all,  and  split  them  thin 
to  films.    And  as  it  is  more  difficult  to  notice  the  trimming  after  the  mica  is  split  to 
films  than  before,  no  doubt  the  difference  was  overlooked  until  the  custom  was  estab- 
lished.   Our  attention  was  not  called  to  it  until  we  were  called  as  witnesses  in  case 
No.  20677,  above  mentioned. 

We  may  state  that  the  labor  cost  of  doing;  this  splitting  in  the  United  States  is  10 
cents  and  11  cents  per  pound,  and  there  is  about  10  per  cent  wastage  of  the  mica  in 
manufacture. 

We  ask  that  all  films  or  splittings  (embraced  under  (2)  on  first  page)  be  placed  in  the 
higher  class  and  pay  10  cents  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  they  should 
properly  do. 

(b)  Or  the  sheets  may  be  cut  to  definite  size  or  pattern — embraced  under  (3)  on  first 
page.     These  sizes  or  patterns  are  innumerable.     The  term  is  "cut"  (not  "trimmed") 
to  size  or  pattern.     It  would  be  a  stretch  of  the  word  to  say  trimmed  to  size  or  pattern. 
To  get  a  pattern  out  of  sheet  mica  it  is  cut  with  either  a  die  or  shears.     It  can  be 
trimmed  closely  to  the  pattern  or  size  desired,  but  to  get  cut  mica  as  the  trade  demands, 
it  must  be  cut,  and  then  it  is  known  as  "cut  mica";  and  while  considered  generally 
as  a  finished  product  it  is  sometimes  again  cut  down  or  changed  in  shape,  so  that  it  is 
difficult  to  determine  what  is  a  finished  product  in  mica. 

For  the  purpose  of  assessing  duty,  cut  mica  is  now  put  in  the  highest  class,  but  until 
case  No.  20677,  above  mentioned,  was  decided,  quantities  of  it  came  in  under  the 
lower  classification;  and  the  same  thing  may  occur  again,  and  is  in  fact,  we  believe, 
now  being  done,  by  so  closely  trimming  the  sheet  that  there  would  be,  or  is,  but  a  small 
loss  of  weight  to  cut  the  pattern  required.  It  is  easy  to  determine  "cut  mica,"  and 
that  is  the  reason  we  say  case  No.  20677  was  an  extreme  one,  and  easy  to  decide.  But 
as  the  law  is  worded  "cut  or  trimmed,"  there  is  no  more  reason  why  closely  trimmed 
mica,  as  now  prepared  by  the  foreign  producer,  should  pay  only  the  lower  duty,  than 
there  is  for  the  better  known  and  determined  cut  mica.  We  ask  that  mica  that  has 
been  trimmed  closely  to  rectangular  or  some  other  definite  shape  be  classed  in  the 
higher  class  the  same  as  "cut"  mica. 

Another  step  in  the  manufacture  of  mica  is  to  take  the  films  and  build  them  up, 
layer  upon  layer,  with  some  binder  like  shellac  between  the  layers,  until  any  desired 
thickness  and  size  is  formed.  This  is  used  in  innumerable  ways,  shapes,  and  patterns, 
and  is  called  by  several  trade  names,  or  in  general  "built  up  mica."  Cut  mica  is  also 
used  for  building  up,  but  not  so  generally  as  the  films.  Both  are  sometimes  used  with 
paper  or  other  sheet  material  for  making  insulating  material,  any  of  which  would  be 
classified  in  the  highest  class  under  the  new  law. 

We,  therefore,  respectfully  request  that  you  have  this  matter  investigated,  and  if 
necessary  try  a  case  on  films  first,  and  another  on  trimmed  mica  as  now  being  imported. 
We  will  be  glad  to  further  post  you  on  any  facts  in  regard  to  the  matter  so  that  our 
contention  can  be  settled  on  its  merits. 

Yours  truly,  ASHEVILLE  MICA  Co., 

Per  W.  VANCE  BROWN. 

THE  GREAT  SOUTHERN  MICA  Co., 
By  H.  F.  SEYMOUR. 

SEPTEMBER,  1909. 


SCHEDULE  B.  561 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 
BRIEF  OF  WATSON  BEOS.,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

WATSON  BROS., 

Boston,  Mass.,  February  14,  191t. 
0.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee -on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  January  20  received.  In  regard  to  duty  on  mica,  all  that 
needs  to  be  said  can  be  said  in  a  few  words. 

As  we  are  importers  and  also  miners  in  this  country,  we  are  quite  able  to  see  both 
sides  of  the  question.  Undoubtedly  a  duty  is  necessary  to  protect  domestic  mining, 
not  so  much  on  account  of  difference  in  cost  of  labor  as  owing  to  the  fact  that  in  this 
country  there  are  no  mines  that  produce  large  quantities.  Most  of  the  product  is 
the  result  of  many  small  operations.  Speaking  for  ourselves,  we  do  not  object  to  the 
present  ad  valorem  duty,  out  we  do  object  strongly  to  the  specific  duty  of  10  cents 
per  pound  on  cut  and  5  cents  per  pound  on  uncut  mica.  As  most  of  the  mica  produced 
is  small  in  size,  and  the  smaller  the  size  the  less  the  price,  you  can  see  that  the  specific 
duty  will  mean  anywhere  from  a  small  per  cent  to  one  of  100  or  200  per  cent,  as  con- 
siderable mica  is  bought  and  sold  as  low  as  10  cents,  5  cents,  and  even  less,  per 
pound.  Should  your  committee,  in  its  wisdom,  think  that  some  compensation  should 
be  made  for  the  specific  duty,  the  ad  valorem  duty  might  be  increased. 

There  is  great  difficulty  in  classifying  mica  under  the  present  specifications.  We 
submit  that  these  classifications  are  needless;  that  the  ad  valorem  duty  covers  it  all. 
As  the  price  of  cut  mica  is  in  proportion  to  its  quality,  the  waste  and  labor  is  paid 
for  in  the  higher  » rice.  For  instance,  a  pound  of  uncut  mica  costing  $1  would  pay 
20  per  cent  and  5,  or  25  cents  per  pound  in  all.  Whereas  a  pound  of  cut  mica,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  usually  half  is  wasted  in  cutting,  would  pay  double  the  price,  or  $2. 
This  at  20  per  cent  and  10  cents  is  30  cents.  As  against  this  slight  difference  in  favor 
of  cut  mica  is  the  great  difficulty  of  drawing  the  line  between  cut  and  uncut  mica, 
as  it  comes  from  some  sections  roughly  trimmed  in  square  shapes.  As  this  is  generally 
trimmed  over  imperfections,  the  waste  is  somewhat  less,  but  the  first  cost  is  higher, 
and  in  the  additional  price  pays  its  proper  duty. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  there  should  be  one  rate  of  duty,  and  that  ad  valorem,  and 
but  one  description,  and  that  the  word  "mica";  that  anything  in  the  shape  of  mica 
pay,  say,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Yours,  truly,  WATSON  BROS. 

LETTER  OF  THE  M.   &  G.   MICA  CO.,   PYRITON,  ALA. 

PYRITON,  ALA.,  January  21,  1913. 
Hon.  J.  THOMAS  HEFLIN, 

LaFayette,  Ala. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  importers  of  mica  are  asking  for  a  large  reduction  of  the  tariff  on 
mica,  while  the  Ashville  Mica  Co.,  in  common  with  us  and  other  domestic  producers, 
are  anxious  that  the  present  tariff  thereon  should  be  maintained.  We  insist  that 
the  tariff  on  mica  should  not  be  reduced  for  the  very  good  reason  that  domestic  pro- 
ducers of  mica  can  not  possibly  compete  with  India  mica  if  the  present  tariff  were 
removed,  or  even  reduced.  The  India  mica,  which  is  mined  with  labor  that  costs 
only  from  10  to  20  cents  per  day,  and  even  aside  from  the  cost  of  labor  is  much  more 
easily  mined  and  less  expensive  to  mine  than  mica  in  this  country,  would,  if  allowed 
to  come  in  here  without  proper  tariff  restrictions,  simply  put  every  mica  miner  in 
the  United  States  out  of  business  and  close  every  mica  mine  in  this  country.  We 
have  spent  a  large  amount  of  money  in  your  State  and  district  in  an  effort  to  develop 
our  property  here  and  to  pave  the  way  for  putting  Alabama  in  the  front  rank  as  a 
mica-producing  State.  As  fine  mica  as  there  is  in  the  world  is  in  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama, and  if  the  tariff  is  let  alone  the  mining  of  mica  will  certainly  become  one  of  the 
prosperous  industries  of  this  State.  Otherwise,  it  will  be  impossible  to  produce  it 
here  except  at  a  great  loss,  and  as  you  know  that  is  not  what  men  go  into  business  for. 

We  have  what  is  said  to  be  the  best  mica-mining  plant  in  the  United  States,  and 
we  are  operating  it  on  a  good  mine  that  we  have  just  opened  up  after  two  or  three 
years  of  hard  development  work.  So  far  we  have  not  had  a  dollar  in  return  for  our 
large  outlay,  but  if  let  alone  we  will  pull  through  all  right;  but  if  the  tariff  on  mica  is 
reduced  or  removed  it  will  simply  mean  that  our  expenditures  here  go  for  naught; 

78959°  —  VOL  1—13 36 


562  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  91— MICA. 

that  our  lose  is  complete  and  our  property  worthless,  because  under  such  conditions 
we  could  not  operate  it. 

We  will  greatly  appreciate  your  consideration  of  this  matter  and  anything  that  you 
may  see  fit  to  do  for  us,  or  rather  to  protect  the  interests  of  domestic  mica  producers  from 
injury,  or  we  may  say  ruin,  from  such  drastic  legislation  as  the  importers  of  mica  are 
asking  for.  Such  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  mica  as  they  haye  demanded,  considered 
strictly  from  an  economic  standpoint,  or  more  properly  as  an  economic  question,  with- 
out reference  to  the  interests  of  any  particular  class  of  people  interested  in  the  mica 
business,  compels  the  conclusion,  first,  that  the  consumers  of  mica  would  not  be  bene- 
fited in  the  least  if  this  reduction  were  made,  because  the  present  combination  of 
importers  could  and  doubtless  would  depress  the  price  of  domestic  mica  to  the  point 
where  domestic  production  would  be  impossible  and  then  put  the  price  wherever 
they  pleased  and  make  the  consumer  pay  it;  secondly,  it  would  decrease  rather 
than  increase  the  revenue  to  the  Government  derived  from  the  importation  of  mica; 
and  lastly  and  in  a  nutshell  the  mica-mining  industry  in  this  country  would  be  com- 
pletely destroyed,  and  without  benefiting  anybody  whatever  except  the  combination 
of  mica  importers. 

Thanking  you  in  advance  for  any  suggestions  or  advice  you  may  care  to  offer  us 
in  regard  to  the  subject  herein  referred  to,  we  beg  to  remain, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

M.  &  G.  MICA  Co., 
By  EDWIN  J.  FORREST,  Superintendent. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  KEENE  MICA  PRODUCTS  CO.,  KEENE,  N.  H. 

KEENE,  N.  H.,  January  18,  191S. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  understand  that  there  was  recently  a  hearing  before  you  regarding 
the  tariff  on  mica,  and  that  the  importers  have  appeared  before  you  with  a  request  to 
have  the  tariff  reduced  on  raw  mica. 

We  beg  leave  to  state  that  we  are  producers  of  domestic  mica  in  a  somewhat  large 
measure  and  anticipate  extending  our  operations  considerably  along  this  line  in  the 
near  future,  and  desire  to  have  at  least  the  protection  against  the  foreign  product  that 
already  exists,  as  on  the  last  revision  of  the  tariff  the  duty  was  lowered  20  per  cent, 
and  is  at  the  present  as  low  as  the  domestic  miner  can  stand.  In  fact  a  further  reduc- 
tion would,  in  all  probability,  make  it  impossible  for  us  to  continue  producing  mica  in 
this  country  at  all  in  a  profitable  manner. 

We  have  discovered  large  deposits  of  mica  in  this  State,  and  if  we  can  retain  the  pres- 
ent protection,  or  even  a  little  more,  against  the  foreign  product  it  will  become,  within 
a  short  time,  a  very  large  industry. 

A  large  proportion  of  the  mica  used  in  this  country  has  heretofore  been  imported, 
and  the  chief  reason  for  this  is  that  the  largest  users  of  and  dealers  in  mica  have  sent 
the  men  best  posted  on  preparing  mica  for  its  various  uses  to  India  and  Canada,  which 
has  resulted  in  the  foreign  mica  becoming  the  best  selected  and  prepared  for  the 
various  uses,  whereas  the  domestic  miner,  as  a  rule,  is  unfamiliar  with  the  various  uses 
his  product  is  put  to,  and  is  not  so  well  posted  in  preparing  it  for  use. 

However,  the  producers  in  this  country  are  gradually  becoming  better  posted  on  the 
selection  and  preparation  of  their  products,  which  will  shortly  result  in  the  change  of 
these  conditions,  as  we  think  the  users  will  readily  buy  the  domestic  as  the  Indian 
mica,  which  will  give  the  production  of  the  domestic  mica  a  new  impetus. 

Trusting  that  you  will  find  it  advisable  to  avoid  a  further  reduction  of  the  tariff,  and 
will  give  us  the  protection  that  is  absolutely  necessary  for  our  welfare,  we  beg  to  remain, 
Yours,  respectfully, 

KEENE  MICA  PRODUCTS  Co., 
DONALD  WALING,    Treasurer. 


SCHEDULE  B.  563 

PARAGRAPH  92— POTTERY. 
PARAGRAPH  92. 

Common  yellow,  brown,  or  gray  earthenware,  plain,  embossed,  -or  salt- 
glazed  common  stoneware,  and  earthenware  or  stoneware  crucibles,  all  the 
foregoing  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
yellow  earthenware,  plain  or  embossed,  coated  with  white  or  transparent  vit- 
reous glaze  but  not  otherwise  ornamented  or  decorated,  and  Rockingham 
earthenware,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

POTTERY. 

EXCESSIVE   DUTY   ON    POTTERY   IMPORTS. 

ST.  Louis,  April  4,  1918. 
Hon.  0.  W.  UNDERWOOD,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  regard  to  excessive  duty  on  imports,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to 
one  classification  on  which,  even  to  me,  a  Republican,  the  duty  seems  absurd.  I 
refer  to  cheap,  bulky,  unglazed  pottery,  such  as  flower  pots;  also  to  cheap,  bulky, 
glazed  pottery,  such  as  jugs  and  earthenware  bottles  and  receptacles  of  many  shapes 
and  sizes. 

Now,  these  goods  are  all  very  bulky.  They  hold  a  great  deal  of  air,  being  "empties." 
Being  so  bulky  and  clumsy  to  pack  and  ship  the  freight  is  very  high  in  proportion  to 
the  low  prices  at  which  they  must  be  sold,  which  in  itself  is  sufficient  protection 
against  sharp  competition  by  foreign  labor.  To  protect  them  from  breakage  in  long 
voyages  and  repeated  transshipments  by  rail  with  so  much  handling  and  rehandling, 
thev  must  also  be  packed  with  extra  care  and  heavy  crating  or  cases,  all  of  which  adds 
to  the  freight  cost.  It  is  ridiculous  to  think  that  American  labor,  even  at  high  wages, 
is  not  sufficiently  protected  in  this  case  by  the  great  distance  and  high  freights. 

It  has  been  our  need  to  import  an  article  of  unglazed  cheap  brown  pottery,  which 
the  potters  in  this  country  are  not  skillful  enough  to  make,  but  which  those  of  Europe 
can  make,  and  the  duty  of  25  per  cent  and  the  high  freights  make  it  difficult  to  do  the 
business  at  all.  Yet  the  article  must  be  sold  at  a  low  price,  owing  to  its  cheap  fabric 
and  cheap  appearance.  If  it  was  admitted  duty  free  it  would  not  be  a  hardship  to 
American  labor. 

Yours,  truly,  H.  B.  SCAMMELL,  President. 

TARIFF    ON    STONEWARE. 

AKRON,  OHIO,  December  26,  191t. 
Hon.  0.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  note  that  the  congressional  committee,  of  which  you  are  chairman, 
is  to  hold  a  hearing  to  consider  matters  pertaining  to  the  question  of  tariffs  on  Jan- 
uary 8,  1913,  and  as  we  are  especially  interested  in  Schedule  B,  covering  chemical 
stoneware,  we  beg  to  say  that  this  industry,  being  now  protected,  as  we  understand 
it,  by  25  per  cent  only  ad  valorem,  would  be  in  case  of  a  reduction  so  seriously  crippled 
that 'it  would  in  all  probability  result  in  a  cessation  of  this  industry  in  the  United  States. 
Our  skilled  American  workmen  in  this  industry  are  now  earning  an  average  of  $3.50 
per  day,  whilst  the  wages  paid  by  our  foreign  competitors  is  considerably  less  than 
one-half  of  this  amount. 

You  will  therefore  see  that  the  imported  article  can  be  and,  in  fact,  is  shipped  into 
this  country  in  large  quantities,  and  is  the  most  formidable  competition  with  which 
we  have  to  contend . 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  in  the  interest  of  the  chemical  stoneware  manufacturer  and 
his  employees  we  trust  that  your  honorable  body  will  deliberate  against  any  further 
reduction  in  the  present  rate  of  tariff. 

Obediently,  yours,  in  the  interest  of  America  and  Americans. 

THE  U.  S.  STONEWARE  Co., 
Per  J.  M.  WILLS,  President. 


564  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

PARAGRAPH  93. 

China,  porcelain,  parian,  bisque,  earthen,  stone,  and  crockery  ware,  includ- 
ing clock  cases  with  or  without  movements,  pill  tiles,  plaques,  ornaments, 
toys,  charms,  vases,  statues,  statuettes,  mugs,  cups,  steins,  and  lamps,  all 
the  foregoing  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware ;  painted,  colored,  tinted, 
stained,  enameled,  gilded,  printed,  or  ornamented  or  decorated  in  any  man- 
ner; and  manufactures  in  chief  value  of  such  ware  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  sixty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  94. 

China,  porcelain,  parian,  bisque,  earthen,  stone  and  crockery  ware,  plain 
white,  plain  brown,  including  clock  cases  with  or  without  movements,  pill 
tiles,  plaques,  ornaments,  toys,  charms,  vases,  statues,  statuettes,  mugs, 
cups,  steins,  and  lamps,  all  the  foregoing  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such 
ware,  not  painted,  colored,  tinted,  stained,  enameled,  gilded,  printed,  or  orna- 
mented or  decorated  in  any  manner ;  and  manufactures  in  chief  value  of  such 
ware  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

STATEMENT    OF   W.  S.  PITCAIRN,  IMPORTER    OF    CHINA   AND 
EARTHEN  WARE,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  speaker  on  the  list  is  Mr.  William  S. 
Pitcairn. 

To  which  paragraph  do  you  address  yourself,  Mr.  Pitcairn? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Paragraphs  92,  93,  and  94. 

I  represent  the  importers  of  English  china  and  earthen  ware  in  the 
city  of  New  York. 

Earthenware  with  the  present  duty  of  55  per  cent  and  60  per  cent 
is  one  of  the  highest-protected  industries  on  which  ad  valorem  rates 
are  imposed. 

Under  the  present  tariff  American  earthenware  is  protected  by  a 
nominal  duty  of  55  per  cent  on  the  white  and  60  per  cent  on  the 
decorated  ware,  whicn  does  not  represent  the  full  burden  levied  upon 
this  commodity. 

The  exorbitant  character  of  the  present  tariff  on  earthenware  can 
be  best  illustrated  by  a  comparison  of  the  selling  prices  of  the  English 
and  domestic  products.  Tne  comparison  is  simplified  by  the  fact 
that  the  American  factories  adopted  the  English  sterling  scale  at  an 
established  ratio  of  88  per  pound.  In  the  illustrations  which  I  shall 
give  quotations  are  those  of  the  best  makers  in  each  country,  stand- 
ard brands  of  ware,  in  usual  wholesale  quantities.  The  figures  rep- 
resent actual  transactions  at  current  prices  in  1912. 

I  wish  to  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  a  plate  manufactured  by 
Johnson  Bros.,  of  England,  white  granite,  a  common  everyday  white 
ware  that  goes  into  use  by  millions  of  people. 

I  also  offer  in  comparison  a  plate  of  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles, 
of  the  United  States,  white  ware,  and  sold  to  the  same  class  of  con- 
sumers. 

The  landed  price  of  Johnson  Bros.'  product  at  the  port  of  entry 
represents  for  a  100-piece  dinner  set,  which  is  what  you  have  been 
considering,  $4.80.  The  selling  cost,  without  a  cent  of  profit,  is 
$4.80  on  the  dock. 

The  selling  price  of  the  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles  product,  a 
similar  class  of  ware,  is  $3.36  per  set. 


SCHEDULE   B.  565 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

I  also  offer  for  your  consideration  a  sample  of  a  product  of  another 
prominent  English  manufacture,  this  plate  being  white  and  gold, 
the  class  of  decoration  that  is  very  popular  at  the  present  time. 
This  costs,  duty  included,  landed  at  a  port  of  entry  like  New  York 
or  similar  port,  $8.48  per  100  pieces,  wliile  the  American  company, 
who  have  complimented  them  by  copying  the  decoration  which  I 
show  to  you  now  in  their  book,  have  a  price  for  the  same  set  of  $6 
per  100  pieces. 

There  is  a  difference  of  42  to  44  per  cent.  The  English  ware 
costs  that  much  higher  than  the  American  selling  price  of  goods 
that  now  stands  before  you,  the  same  class,  going  to  the  same  people, 
and  the  same  production. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  it  will  not  interrupt,  I  would  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion right  there. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  see  a  competitive  tariff  all  along 
the  line,  and  I  will  reserve  the  right  to  change  my  mind  if  any  tes- 
timony comes  before  me  to  change  it.  It  looks  to  me  like  this 
schedule  on  paragraphs  92,  93,  and  94  is  quite  a  competitive  affair, 
more  competitive  than  most  of  the  paragraphs  and  most  of  the 
items  we  have  to  deal  with.  If  there  is  any  block  in  that  competi- 
tion along  certain  lines,  of  course  when  you  get  to  that  point,  we  will 
be  glad  to  have  it  pointed  out.  When  we  see  the  large  amount  of 
importations  as  compared  to  the  American  consumption,  I  believe 
we  can  ah1  concede  it  is  competitive  as  regarded  from  top  to  bottom 
of  these  two  paragraphs  93  and  94.  If  there  is  a  block  along  the 
line  where  certain  articles  are  not  competitive,  I  would  be  glad  for 
you  to  point  out  to  me  if  you  can  where  that  block  exists. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Paragraph  92  is  a  dead  letter,  as  your  figures  in  the  Treasury  De- 
partment show.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to-day,  with  that  class  of 
merchandise,  to  pay  the  freight  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean  without  any 
duty  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  not  talking  about  paragraph  92. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Paragraph  92  is  important  also,  if  you  do  not  mind. 
We  used  to  sell  those  goods  to  you,  and  I  am  still  importing  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  you  that  paragraph 
92  is  not  competitive  like  the  other  two.  But  what  I  was  talking 
about  is  this  which  comes  under  paragraphs  93  and  94.  That  strikes 
me  as  quite  competitive. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  These  which  I  have  shown  you  are  under  93  and  94. 
The  American  potter  sells  this  identical  proposition,  as  I  said  before, 
costing  $6  per  set,  against  the  foreign  merchandise  $8.48.  It  is  no 
marvel,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  imports  from  old  England,  of  the 
class  of  goods  which  I  have  submitted  to  you  here  as  representing 
the  earthenware,  have  gone  from  $4,500,000  to  $2,000,000. 

Mr.  PETERS.  At  the  same  time,  have  not  the  importations  from 
Germany  increased  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  speaking  of  the  matter  of  earthenware,  and 
specifically  the  English  earthenware,  because  it  most  directly  comes 
in  contact  with  productions  of  the  American  factories.  Xinety  per 
cent  of  that,  approximately,  is  this  class  of  ware,  and  when  we  did 


566  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

$4,500,000  of  business,  we  were  doing  a  pretty  good  business,  with  a 
great  deal  of  courtesy  to  the  American  consumer.  The  American 
factories  progressed,  and  they  have  all  the  advantages  over  us,  but 
that  is  no  reason  why  a  prohibitive  tariff  should  be  put  on,  so  we  could 
not  compete  at  all.  If  this  thing  goes  on  very  mucn  further,  schedule 
94  will  be  in  the  same  class  with  schedule  92.  We  will  be  put  out 
altogether,  and  then  they  will  have  the  market  to  themselves — but  I 
presume  that  is  all  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  interested  in  this  proposition  because  I  want 
to  get  the  facts. 

I  notice  that  in  1896  there  were  $8,000,000  imported  and  in  1895 
$8,000,000.  In  1910  the  imports  increased  to  $10,000,000  and  in 
1911  to  $10,900,000,  and  last  year  fell  down  to  $9,615,000.  It  appears 
from  our  figures  that  the  total  consumption  of  articles  under  this 
paragraph  was  $34,000,000.  You  say  that  importation  is  over  25 
per  cent  of  the  imports  on  these  two  paragraphs  as  compared  with 
the  American  consumption. 

I  do  not  know  whether  you  are  familiar  with  the  tariff  schedule  or 
not,  but  that  is  a  very  large  importation  in  comparison  to  the  aver- 
age paragraph  in  the  tariff  schedule,  and  taking  it  as  a  whole  it  strikes 
me  as  quite  competitive,  reserving  the  right  to  change  my  opinion  if 
you  gentlemen  can  convince  me.  That  is  what  I  want  to  draw  out. 
I  want  to  see  where  there  is  a  block,  if  at  all. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  In  the  total  importations  I  ask  if  you  will  kindly 
think  of  the  matter  of  the  English  earthenware,  because  that  is  the 
bulk  of  all  earthenware  that  reaches  this  country.  The  Americans 
do  not  make  china,  except  incidentally.  Of  their  $17,000,000  they 
do  not  produce  more  than  $2,000,000  of  china.  I  think  those  are 
about  the  figures;  I  am  not  speaking  in  exact  dollars  and  cents.  So 
that  earthenware  has  gone  down  from  $4,500,000  of  English  alone  to 
$2,000,000  in  English  alone. 

As  I  said  before,  if  the  tariff  remains  as  it  is,  English  ware  or  any 
earthenware — I  say  English  because  it  is  the  bulk — will  be  greatly 
eliminated  from  the  market,  and  it  will  be,  as  I  said  before,  in  the 
same  position  as  paragraph  92. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  contend  that  most  of  these  importations 
are  in  china,  and  not  earthenware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Your  figures  on  that  will  prove  that  to  you.  They 
are  4  to  1,  I  believe,  viz,  $2,000,000  earthenware  against  $8,000,000 
china. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  do  you  make  the  distinction  between 
earthenware  and  chinaware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  formerly  had  that  distinction;  before  1883. 
They  were  classified  together  again  afterwards  as  one  proposition,  and 
in  the  schedule  we  present  to  you  to-day  we  ask  you  once  more  to 
divide  between  earthenware,  as  it  goes  to  most  of  the  consumers,  and 
chinaware.  We  ask  you  to  separate  china  and  earthenware. 

Mr.  PETERS.  What  rate  do  you  suggest  on  earthenware  under  this 
division  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  should  like  to  present  that  matter  to  you  fully.  I 
should  like  to  suggest  the  competitive  figures  we  are  dealing  with. 
The  landed  cost  we  are  dealing  with  as  against  the  American  market 
should  be  brought  to  your  attention. 


SCHEDULE   B.  567 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Here,  for  instance  [indicating],  is  a  white  and  gold  plate  that  cost 
$8.48.  Here  [indicating]  is  the  same  identical  production  that  they 
sell  at  $6  per  set.  They  are  40  per  cent  higher  on  the  cost  of  the  ware 
on  the  dock  in  New  York  than  the  same  merchandise  is  sold  for  in 
East  Liverpool. 

We  want  to  be  quite  as  generous  as  possible  and  still  remain  in  the 
business  of  old  English  earthenware.  We  suggest  a  tariff  rate  at  not 
to  exceed  30  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  on  earthenware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

These  gentlemen,  Mr.  Burgess  and  Mr.  Wells,  appeared  before  you 
yesterday  representing  the  "infant  industry,"  and,  with  all  its  frail- 
ties, I  have  always  noticed  in  the  last  20  years  it  has  a  pretty  lusty 
voice.  This  committee  was  informed  yesterday  morning  by  Mr. 
Burgess  and  Mr.  Wells,  representing  these  American  potters,  that 
their  profits  were  restrained  to  about  7  per  cent  because  of  compet- 
itive conditions  with  foreign  ware. 

These  [indicating]  are  the  wares  they  compete  with  directly. 
Earthenware  is  then*  product. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  1  may  be  wrong  about  this,  but  let  me  ask  you 
this  question.  You  refer  to  the  English  earthenware.  I  heard 
there  was  a  good  deal  of  competition  in  this  class  of  earthenware 
coming  from  Austria? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  There  is  no  earthenware  from  Austria. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  all  china? 

Mr.  PITCAJRN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  earthenware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No.  I  think  I  may  say  safely  that  90  per  cent  of 
the  importations  of  earthenware  are  from  Great  Britain,  and  always 
have  been  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  which  comes  from  Austria  is  china  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  the  thing  we  suggest  differen- 
tiating. 

As  I  say,  these  gentlemen  informed  this  committee  yesterday  that 
their  profits  were  restrained  to  about  7  per  cent  because  of  the  com- 
petitive condition  with  reference  to  foreign  wares.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  these  are  their  prices,  and  there  is  a  difference  of  44  per  cent 
between  their  selling  price  and  our  cost  price,  and  I  do  not  quite  see 
the  evidence  of  restraint. 

Mr.  Burgess  took  occasion  to  mention  that  a  very  important 
English  competitor,  Johnson  Bros.,  a  few  years  ago,  declared  a  divi- 
dend that  he  considered  large.  Johnson  Bros,  are  one  of  the  largest 
sanitary  manufacturers  in  England.  Mr.  Burgess  carefully  omitted 
to  mention  the  fact  that  they  were  the  largest  sanitary  manufac- 
turers in  England,  and  that  in  the  year  he  referred  to  they  had  had  a 
very  successful  year,  and  that  the  bulk  of  their  large  profit  came 
from  the  sale  of  that  sanitary  product,  which  is  absolutely  prohibited 
from  importation  into  this  market  at  55  per  cent  duty,  and  I  doubt 
if  there  nas  been  any  importation  of  it  in  10  years.  So  when  you 
come  to  consider  those  alleged  large  profits,  kindly  refer  to  the  lact 
that  it  is  on  sanitary  ware,  in  which  the  American  market  holds 
practically  a  monopoly. 


568  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

In  addition  to  the  present  tax  of  55  and  60  per  cent,  we  wish  to 
emphasize  the  substantial  protection  afforded  by  the  heavy  expenses 
of  bringing  earthenware  to  this  country  from  England.  The  freights 
from  Staffordshire  to  Liverpool  and  sea  freight  to  an  American  port, 
such  as  New  York,  Baltimore  or  Philadelphia,  amount  to  approxi- 
mately 15  per  cent  in  the  value  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  ware  and  10 
per  cent  on  the  best  grades.  The  Atlantic  sea  freight  alone  has  been 
increased  in  the  last  three  years  over  200  per  cent,  and  the  sea  freight 
on  a  crate  has  advanced  from  80  cents  to  $2.50. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  another  question  at  this  point. 

How  much  do  you  say  is  the  amount  of  the  American  consumption 
of  that  class  of  earthenware  that  you  have  before  you;  that  is,  all 
that  will  be  classed  in  schedules  93  and  94  as  earthenware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  You  are  speaking  of  consumption  ?  You  are  speak- 
ing of  the  table  wares  which  we  are  discussing,  and  you  are  not  refer- 
ring to  the  sanitary  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  sanitary  wares  are  all  under  schedule  92,  are 
they  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  It  is  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  There  is  none  in 
there.  I  do  not  believe  No.  92  covers  sanitary  ware. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is  in  93  or  94;  that  is,  to  the  best  of 
my  knowledge  and  belief.  They  produced  $15,000,000.  We  im- 
ported $2, 000, 000,  approximately,  we  will  say.  That  is  $17,000,000 
lor  the  two.  You  think  the  total  consumption  of  that  class  of  earth- 
enware is  $17,000,000? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  speaking  now  of  selling  values.  I  do  not 
know  what  the  consumption  price  would  be,  but  there  is  $15,000,000 
of  theirs  and  $2,000,000  of  ours. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  talking  about  the  wholesale  or  import  prices. 
Would  not  that  be  correct  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  If  you  are  trying  to  reach  the  consumption,  you 
would  have  to  add  our  factory  cost  and  the  freights  and  the  duties 
at  the  port.  That  would  make  our  importations  about  $2,500,000 
and  the  domestic  production  approximately  $15,000,000  for  that  class 
of  ware. 

Is  that  clear,  sir? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  so ;  yes. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yesterday  some  reference  was  made  to  the  matter 
of  geographical  protection  as  a  sort  of  myth.  There  is  no  myth  about 
the  price  that  we  pay  to-day  for  freight  to  Liverpool  and  these  other 
charges  which  accrue.  For  instance,  Mr.  Burgess  stated  yesterday 
that  the  sea  freight  from  Liverpool  to  Baltimore  was  8  cents  per  hun- 
dred pounds.  The  fact  is  the  rate  is  25  cents  per  hundred  pounds — 
quite  a  difference.  These  transportation  charges  alone  constitute  a 
big  protection  against  foreign  goods.  Under  such  conditions  a  duty 
of  30  per  cent  on  earthenware  would  be  more  than  generous  protection. 

These  freights  represent  actual  money  that  we  pay  out, and  amount 
to  approximately  10  per  cent  on  the  highest  class  of  ware  and  15  to  20 
per  cent  on  the  cheapest  classes  of  ware. 

If  you  will  go  to  paragraph  92,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  give  you  an 
example.  I  imported  to  the  Philadelphia  port  12  crates  of  stoneware 
for  retorts  for  the  use  of  chemical  manufacturing  people,  on  which  I 
paid  38  per  cent  freight  of  the  total  value  of  the  goods.  The  invoice 


SCHEDULE  B.  569 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

value  is  £54,  and  the  freight  we  paid  on  the  Philadelphia  bill  was  £21 
or  38  per  cent. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Longworth)  asked  this  morning 
about  freight  from  Philadelphia.  I  pay  20  shillings  per  ton  cubic 
measure,  equivalent  to  50  cents  per  hundred  pounds  on  similar  crates. 
I  paid  that  amount  on  that  particular  crate. 

I  was  in  England  last  month  trying  to  make  arrangements  for 
freight  for  another  year,  the  rates  of  which  have  been  steadily 
advancing.  There  is  coalition  of  these  steaming  companies,  with 
which  I  think  we  are  all  familiar.  I  went  into  every  steamship 
company  in  Liverpool  and  London,  and  I  could  not  get  separate 
quotations  from  any  one  of  them  different  than  any  other  from  any 
port  there  to  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Newport  News,  or 
New  Orleans,  and  when  the  canal  is  opened  they  will  control  the 
same  proposition  up  to  the  Pacific  coast  ports,  and  you  can  not  get 
a  differential  of  a  penny.  We  are  paying  to-day,  sir,  25  cents  per 
100  pounds  for  every  crate  containing  the  earthenware  that  we 
bring  into  the  United  States,  and  if  that  is  not  substantial  protec- 
tion, as  I  have  said  before,  I  do  not  know  what  is.  It  causes  a 
mighty  big  freight  bill,  and  costs  us  a  great  deal  of  money.  To 
insure  safe  transportation  these  packages  have  to  be  very  substan- 
tial, and  are  very  expensive.  The  ordinary  crate  costs  at  the  factory 
$4.10  net,  and  plus  the  60  per  cent  duty  costs  $6.55.  It  is  very 
readily  seen  that  this  item  is  a  very  heavy  burden  on  the  common 
grades  of  ware,  a  crate  containing  $60,  duty  paid,  of  ware,  and  is 
inequitable  because  it  rests  most  heavily  upon  the  cheaper  ware 
which  goes  to  the  mass  of  the  consumers.  Crates  and  casks  are 
produced  in  America  fully  as  cheaply  as  in  England  and  are  not 
entitled  to  duty  at  the  same  rate  as  the  contents. 

There  is  another  item  I  want  to  call  attention  to  in  regard  to  the 
English  ware.  The  conditions  of  manufacture  in  England  have  been 
steadily  growing  against  them. 

The  Government  takes  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  the  working  people. 
They  have  established  industrial  commissions  and  this  insurance 
legislation;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  cost  of  labor  and  coal,  has 
forced  them  in  the  past  few  years  to  advance  their  selling  price  in  the 
markets  of  the  world,  of  which  this  is  one,  from  12^  to  22  per  cent. 

Consequently,  as  I  have  said,  we  are  paying  60  per  cent  additional 
duty  on  that  advance.  It  is  true  our  friends  in  the  United  States 
have  issued  a  notice  of  advance  effective  January  1,  1913,  of  5  per 
cent  on  the  $17,000,000,  which  will  give  them  another  $800,000  profit 
to  add  to  the  $300,000  or  $400,000  they  mentioned  the  other  day. 
But  there  is  the  matter  of  22  per  cent  additional  value  as  represented 
in  your  customs  house,  on  which  we  are  paying  the  somewhat  extraor- 
dinary charge,  so  far  as  this  is  concerned,  of  60  per  cent. 

When  the  60  per  cent  duty  first  took  effect  away  back  in  1888  or 
1890,  as  I  remember,  it  was  assessed  on  the  ware,  assessed  on  the 
contents,  and  not  on  the  package.  A  little  after  that  they  worked 
in  that  old  "joker,"  as  we  term  it,  and  taxed  the  outside  package  at 
the  same  price  as  the  ware.  You  know,  and  we  all  know,  it  is  inequit- 
able if  you  have  these  wares  in  a  package  that  costs  $4.50,  whether 
the  package  contains  this  cheap-priced  ware  to  which  I  have  referred 
or  whether  the  package  contains  a  set  worth  $500.  The  duty  on  the 


570  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

$550  crate  is  the  same  as  on  the  $50  crate,  and  that  fact  alone  is  one 
that  we  think  is  iniquitous.  The  American  manufacturer  produces 
his  crate  just  as  cheaply  as  we  do  in  England.  There  is  no  question 
about  that.  When  we  get  our  crates  and  casks  here  into  the  port  of 
New  York  and  unpacked,  we  give  them  to  the  drayman,  because  he 
is  there  to  carry  them  away  for  the  sake  of  the  straw. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  in  the  administrative  feature  of  the  law. 

Mr.  PITCAIEN.  Yes;  but  I  would  like  to  have  it  considered.  We 
hope  some  day  you  will  not  forget  this  is  a  most  onerous  tax. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  administrative  features  of  the  law  will 
probably  come  up  with  this  bill,  so  if  you  have  anything  to  say  on 
that  proposition,  we  will  be  glad  to  have  you  file  it  with  your  brief. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Thank  you. 

We  are  recommending,  Mr.  Chairman,  a  division  of  schedule  of 
earthenware  and  china.  We  strongly  advocate  a  division  of  this 
schedule  separating  these  classes  of  ware  and  favoring  the  earthen- 
ware products  for  many  reasons. 

No.  92  has  been  obliterated  so  far  as  the  importation  proposition 
is  concerned  and  so  far  as  the  revenue  proposition  is  concerned  or  so 
far  as  even  ordinary  justice  to  the  consumer  is  concerned.  There  is 
no  competition;  that  has  been  eliminated. 

We  have  imported  £1,000  worth  of  stoneware  for  these  chemical 
and  powder  manufacturers,  who  still  insist  they  want  the  old  British 
quality  to  which  they  have  been  accustomed  for  so  many  years,  and 
in  spite  of  those  disadvantages  they  still  take  some  of  that;  but  other- 
wise the  importation  of  the  common  grades  of  ware,  common  yellow, 
brown,  and  brown  stoneware  have  all  been  eliminated,  and  that  is  in 
the  possession  of  the  American  manufacturer  with  no  competition. 
The  only  thing  we  fear  is  that  you  shall  bring  paragraph  94  into  the 
same  condition.  If  we  have  gone  from  $4,500,000  to  $2,000,000,  as 
I  have  explained  it  to  you,  it  will  not  be  very  long  before  we  wipe  out 
the  rest,  so  far  as  competition  is  concerned. 

As  I  say,  we  urge  the  separation  of  earthenware  from  china.  The 
sale  of  earthenware  has  been  almost  eliminated  by  reason  of  the  high 
prohibitive  rates  of  55  and  GO  per  cent  duty  in  force.  English  earthen- 
ware imports  have  decreased  fiom  $4,500,000  in  1892  to  $2,000,000 
iu  1912,  as  I  have  previously  stated.  In  the  same  period  the  domestic 
production  increased  from '§8, 800,000  to  approximately  $17,000,000. 

We  think  the  domestic  industry  would  be  helped  and  not  injured 
by  allowing  competition  with  English  ware,  and  that  without  this 
stimulus  and  incentive  would  deteriorate  both  in  quality  and  effi- 
ciency. We  advocate  it  on  both  grounds.  The  American  manufac- 
turers themselves  advocated  it  several  years  ago.  They  said  then  that 
there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  put  together  any  more  than 
silks  and  woolens,  and  we  rather  agree  with  them. 

We  claim  finally  that  the  American  potter  has  practically  solved 
the  problems  in  the  matter  of  earthenware  manufacture  so  far  as  such 
problems  ever  will  be  solved.  He  is  no  longer  an  infant,  but  has 
passed  into  the  stage  of  full  maturity  and  no  longer  requires  the  pro- 
tection that  is  almost  prohibitive  to  us.  We  therefore  ask  relief  from 
the.  exorbitant,  unnecessary  duty  of  55  and  60  per  cent  and  urge  a 
rate  of  30  per  cent  on  earthenware  and  35  per  cent  on  china  as  abun- 


SCHEDULE   B.  571 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

dant,  fair,  and  equitable,  both  to  the  manufacturer  and  to  the  con- 
sumer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  can  see  the  force  of  your  argument  on  this 
earthenware  proposition,  but  why  do  you  advocate  a  lower  rate  of 
duty  on  china  when  you  say  that  is  where  all  this  competition  lies  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  I  say  all  the  competition  lies  in  earthen- 
ware. They  are  manufacturers  of  earthenware,  just  as  we  are. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  I  am  talking  about  the  great  bulk  of  these 
imports  that  are  coming  in,  as  I  understood  you,  which  are  in  the 
china  portion  of  the  schedule,  and  that  it  was  not  in  earthenware. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  correct. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Therefore  there  ought  to  be  a  reduction  on  earthen- 
ware, but  if  your  argument  is  correct  that  would  show  that  the  com- 
petition on  chinaware  has  made  it  even  more  competitive  than  my 
figures  would  show,  when  they  are  all  classed  together. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  How  will  they  compete  if  they  do  not  produce  the 
goods  ?  They  are  not  producing  chinaware,  except  hotel  china. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  are  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  Americans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  there  is  no  chinaware  made  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  There  is  about  $1,700,000,  according  to  the  last 
figures  they  quoted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  chinaware  is  largely  a  luxury,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  very  moderate  priced  china, 
from  the  continental  countries  particularly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  competition  I  am  talking  about  is  the  com- 
petition that  comes  from  other  countries,  not  competition  here  at 
home.  I  am  talking  about  your  competition  witn  the  American 
manufacturers. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  have  shown  that  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  com- 
pete. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  your  earthenware;  but  there  must  be  a  very 
considerable  competition  on  chinaware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Competition  with  the  American  product  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  What  do  you  say  is  the  amount  of  impor- 
tation of  chinaware,  and  how  much  do  the  American  manufacturers 
produce  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  importations  last  year,  I  believe,  "were  about 
$10,000,000.  Two  million  dollars  of  that,  I  think,  was  earthenware. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  talking  about  china. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  getting  down  to  that.  Eight  million  dollars 
of  it  was  china.  About  $4,000,000  of  that,  I  should  assume,  or  one- 
half  of  that  product,  was  noncompetitive  goods  that  are  not  pro- 
duced in  this  country  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Those  are  in  the  noncompetitive  articles  and  in 
the  class  of  luxuries  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  know  how  far  it  would  be  in  the  nature  of 
luxuries. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  draw  out,  to  find  if 
you  do  know. 


572  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  totally  interested  in  the  British  ware.  So  far 
as  the  English  china  is  concerned,  we  concede  it  is  a  luxury.  It  is 
well  made,  carefully  made,  and  is  very  costly.  We  therefore  think 
the  tariff  on  that  is  not  material.  People  that  have  the  money  will 
buy  it,  and  probably  will  be  glad  to  pay  for  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  are  the  class  of  people  that  can  well 
afford  to  pay  the  tax  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  think  that  is  Democratic  doctrine. 

I  submit  the  separation  of  the  classification  for  you  gentlemen  to 
consider,  if  you  will  kindly  consider  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  kindly  read  it  ? 

Mr.  PrrcAiRN  (reading) : 

Paragraph  92.  Common  yellow,  brown,  red,  or  gray  earthenware;  brown  stoneware; 
plain,  embossed,  or  salt-glazed  stoneware  and  crucibles,  all  the  foregoing  not  decorated 
in  any  manner,  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  offer  that  as  a  substitute  for  portions  of  92, 
93,  and  94  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  we  offer  that  by  itself  in  substitution  for 
the  present  92,  as  against  25  per  cent.  It  was  the  feeling  of  our 
committee  that  we  could  not  go  very  far.  Personally  I  would 
advocate  that  it  should  be  wiped  out  entirely.  As  I  say,  the  geo- 
graphical protection  has  prohibited  it  from  coming  into  America  at 
all.  I  should  like  to  see  the  competitive  conditions  restored.  I  think 
it  is  good  for  the  men  here,  as  it  is  good  for  us,  and  for  the  consumer 
also. 

We  are  suggesting  merely  a  reduction  from  25  to  10. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  change  the  classification  on  that? 

Air.  PITCAIRN.  Xo,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  proposing  a  change  of  -classification  in 
paragraph  93  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Separating  china  from  earthenware. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  it  there  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  suggest  as  to  paragraph  93  the  following: 

China,  porcelain,  bisque,  and  parian  ware,  composed  of  a  nonabsorbent  and  trans- 
lucent body,  not  specially  provided  for,  including  clock  cases  with  or  without  move- 
ments, and  all  other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware,  all  of  the 
foregoing,  plain,  embossed,  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

That  is  to  say,  the  suggestion  would  be  on  our  part  that  the  old 
differential  between  white  and  decorated  should  be  eliminated,  and 
they  should  both  go  in  for  one. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  to  cover  earthenware  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  china. 

On  the  earthenware  we  suggest  as  covering  the  whole  of  the  im- 
portations of  that  class,  the  following: 

Earthenware,  stoneware,  crockery,  white  granite,  and  semiporcelain,  whether  or  not 
vitrified  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  whether  or  not  composed  of  a  hard  opaque  but  porous 
body  capable  of  absorbing  moisture,  including  plates,  cups,  saucers,  and  other  articles 
or  pieces  such  as  are  commonly  used  in  breakfast,  dinner,  tea,  and  similar  table  sets, 
toilet  sets,  hotel  ware,  Pill  tiles,  clock  cases,  with  or  without  movements,  placques, 
ornaments,  toys,  vases,  statues,  statuettes,  mugs,  steins,  and  lamps,  together  with  all 
other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware,  all  of  the  foregoing,  plain, 
embossed,  or  decorated  in  any  manner — thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


SCHEDULE   B.  573 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Rockingham,  yet,  and  Samian  ware,  plain  or  decorated,  thirty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  contend  the  classification  as  you  have 
written  it  there  covers  all  the  articles  that  are  now  included  in 
paragraphs  92,  93,  and  94? 

Mr.  PITCAIBN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWOBTH.  I  do  not  think  I  understand  any  better  than  » 
the  chairman  does  why  you  should  not  be  recommending  a  lower 
duty  on  china. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  personally  would,  owing  to  the  fact  merely  that 
the  prices  of  all  merchandise  have  been  pretty  high,  and  I  think  the 
American  competitor  has  shown  by  his  prices  that  the  finer  ware  is 
not  interfering  with  his  product,  that  tne  restriction  of  competition    • 
is  not  coming  from  this  class  of  merchandise. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Jones,  who  spoke 
here  this  morning  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  agree  very  much  with  him. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  said  there  was  a  strong,  active  competition 
between  American  chinaware  and  English  chinaware. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  think  perhaps  there  is  a  confusion  of  terms  in 
that  matter.  English  chinaware  is  in  a  class  by  itself. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  see  you  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Jones  on  that, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  defer  always  to  a  gentleman  his  age,  and  I  would 
not  offer  to  disagree  with  him 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  think  that  if  paragraph  93  reduced 
china  50  per  cent  the  Government  revenue  would  be  increased  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  You  mean  whether  the  increased  importation  would 
equalize  the  present  revenue? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Or  would  more  than  equalize  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  always  problematical. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  not  interested  in  the  revenue  question? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  You  are  speaking  of  revenue? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  should  think  that  a  reduction  in  selling  price 
always  mean  a  wider  clientele. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  is  not  what  I  am  asking  you. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  the  only  way  I  can  argue,  to  show  how  much 
more  you  will  increase  your  sales. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  We  are  talking  about  a  reduction  of  duty.  You 
advocate  a  reduction  of  duty  from  60  to  35  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Is  it  your  theory  the  Government  revenues  will 
be  increased  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir.  * 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  do  not  think  they  would  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  simply  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  PrrcAiRN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  not  interested  in  the  question  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Very  much  interested,  but  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  why  do  you  advocate  it,  if  you  do  not 
know? 


574  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   92-94— POTTEBY. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Because  I  am  importing  the  merchandise,  and 
should  like  a  wider  market;  because  I  do  know  that  at  a  more  reason- 
able price  I  can  sell  more  goods. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  All  that  would  come  in  would  mean  displace- 
ment of  a  corresponding  amount  of  American  ware  ? 

Mr.  PITCATRN.  If  the  Americans  made  similar  goods,  that  would  be 
so;  but  they  do  not  make  them. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Again  you  disagree  with  Mr.  Jones  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  know  that. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  said  there  is  active  American  competition. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  know  about  that.  I  am  not  going  to  go 
into  that. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  had  better  confine  yourself  to  earthenware, 
had  you  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  pretty  much. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  why  can  not  you  leave  china  alone  ?  You 
say  you  do  not  know  anything  about  it  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  still  importing  china,  and  in  the  old  days  I 
used  to  enjoy  this  differential.  That  was  back  in  the  old  days  before 
the  gentlemen  you  represent  came  in  control,  that  I  enjoyed  this 
differential.  We  would  like  to  go  back  to  the  old  days.  However, 
we  are  keeping  just  as  cheerful  as  we  can  under  adverse  circumstances. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  have  been  looking  over  your  draft  somewhat.  You 
purport  to  give  some  actual  transactions,  one  with  Johnson  Bros. 
English,  and  the  other  with  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles,  American. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Those  were  actual  transactions,  were  they? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir;  representing  Johnson  Bros.'  importations. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  mistaken  in  saying  that  it  was  an  actual 
transaction.  It  was  not  imported,  was  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  '-Vho  imported  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Johnson  Bros.'  customers.  When  our  committee 
got  together  we  supplied  each  other  with  figures,  and  the  class  of 
ware  Johnson  Bros,  make  is  the  same  as  the  factories  here  make,  of 
about  the  same  prices,  as  I  have  explained. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Were  these  goods  of  a  similar  quality?  Were  the  two 
transactions,  English  and  American,  of  a  similar  character? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  There  they  are  [displaying  two  earthenware  plates]. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  quality.  I  am  asking 
you  as  an  expert. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  should  think  they  are  very  similar,  visually, 
visually  similar  and  actually  similar. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Were  they  high-class  goods? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  Low-class  goods  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Low-class  white  ware  goods,  on  everybody's  table. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  And  invoiced  for  $8  per  pound  sterling  ? 

Mr.  PrrcAiRx.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  Did  you  ever  know  of  any  goods  sold  at  that  rate? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  said  the  basis  of  $8  per  pound  sterling  was  the 
established  ratio  for  the  adjustment  of  American  manufacturers' 
selling  prices. 


SCHEDULE   B.  575 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94^POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  the  average,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  it  is  an  absolute  arbitrary  ratio  that  they 
established  for  themselves. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  $8  per  pound  sterling? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  they  are  bought  and  sold  at  that  rate? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  They  are  sold  at  that  here,  with  a  discount  of  66§ 
and  5  and  1 ,  as  that  paper  shows. 

Mr  PAYNE.  You  finally  sum  up  and  make  the  cost  of  the  English 
transaction  for  a  similar  amount  of  goods  for  $388.70  laid  down  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  correct. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  without  any  duty? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  without  any  duty. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  'And  the  American  selling  price  for  the  same  class  of 
goods  you  show  to  be  $401.29? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  a  difference  of  something  over  $12  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  correct. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  you  still  say  these  goods  were  imported  from 
England  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  the  duty  on  that,  if  it  had  been  honestly  paid  at 
55  cents,  would  have  been  how  much  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  $187. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  were  they  sold  on  the  American  market? 

Mr.  PrrcAiBN.  Yes,  sir;  they  were. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Does  any  firm  do  such  business  as  that  as  a  usual 
thing? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Every  American  wholesale  merchant  is  doing  just 
that  thing. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Everv  importing  house  is  doing  that  thing? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  All  others  that  transact  a  general  business  are  doing 
it,  doing  that  same  thing;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  long  have  they  been  doing  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Forty  or  fifty  years,  I  think. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  tnere  been  any  evidences  or  cases  of  bankruptcy 
in  that  business  during  that  time  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  have  had  our  disasters,  like  all  other  trades. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  there  has  been  an  ordinarily  successful  business, 
has  there  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  think  we  can  boast. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  say  ordinarily  successful. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  What  do  you  call  "ordinary"  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  If  you  are  an  ordinary  business  man  you  ought  to 
know,  without  asking  the  question,  whether  you  are  in  an  ordinary 
successful  business  or  not. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  It  is  such  a  variable  one.  At  times  it  is  prosperous; 
at  tunes  it  is  not. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  want  this  committee  to  believe  that  the  thing 
has  been  done — paying  $167  more  for  the  goods  than  the  selling  price 
of  the  same  kind  of  American  goods — successfully  in  this  market  ? 


576  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PrrcAiRN.  Not  successfully.  I  said  we  were  being  gradually 
and  very  quickly  eliminated,  but  we  are  doing  that  very  thing. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  there  were  $2,000,000 
left? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Not  of  the  white  ware.  We  fell  down  on  the  white 
ware  from  $585,000  in  1903  to  $300,000  last  year;  so  you  can  see  the 
gradual  downhill  movement. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  has  been  running  along  for  50  years  on  that  same 
line? 

Mr.  PrrcAiRN.  Oh,  no;  you  did  not  always  have  that  55  and  65 
per  cent  hanging  over  our  heads. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  the  American  goods  cost  less 
40  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIEN.  They  were  not  making  any,  practically  speaking. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  had  the  same  discrepancy,  have  you  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  With  that  duty  and  competition  I  do  not  know  why 
we  should  not  increase  the  duty  and  make  it  easier  for  you. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  If  you  want  to  eliminate  our  goods  from  America, 
go  right  along — if  you  want  to  eliminate  the  goods  as  you  did  in  para- 
graph 92. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  do  not  think  it  will  eliminate  them,  according  to  your 
story.  We  do  not  seem  to  be  able  to  eliminate  it  at  all.  It  is  my 
opinion,  if  you  were  telling  the  truth  about  these  two  bills,  we  woulcl 
eliminate  your  entire  industry  in  30  days. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Do  you  question  the  statement  I  have  made? 

Mr.  PAYXE.  That  is  my  opinion  of  it.  % 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  I  want  you  to  tell  us  how  you  can  succeed  in  making 
money  on  such  terms  as  that? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Mr.  Payne,  are  you  questioning  the  integrity  of  that 
invoice  ?  I  will  produce  the  figures. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  I  am  only  questioning  your  statement. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  will  bring  the  figures  from  the  United  States  Treas- 
ury Department. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  I  want  to  know  the  business  you  are  doing. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  will  bring  the  entry  from  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment and  show  that  is  what  we  are  doing  every  day  of  our  lives. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  You  had  better  get  some  figures  for  the  committee 
besides  that  if  you  want  me  to  believe  it. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  am  sorry  you  do  not  believe  it. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  I  do  not  think  the  Treasury  Department  can  bring  any 
such  remarkable  showing  as  that.  But  aside  from  that 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  But  I  do  not  want  to  step  aside  from  that  at  all. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  What  firms  are  you  connected  with  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRXT.  I  am  myself  in  business  in  New  York,  importer  and 
buyer  for  others. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  Are  you  also  connected  in  any  way  with  Dolton? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  Yes.  sir:  I  am  agent  for  them. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  What  other  firm? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  buy  in  the  open  markets  from  all  the  rest,  what 
ever  I  find. 


SCHEDULE  B.  577 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94^POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  large  a  business  do  the  Doltons  do  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Bless  you,  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  A  million  dollars? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  You  mean  in  this  market  or  some  other? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  In  selling  crockery  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  Dolton  firm  is  pretty  large.  They  have  5,000 
people  doing  business  there.  I  have  not  the  figures  of  their  produc- 
tion. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  not  any  idea  what  business  they  do  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Certainly  not.     I  would  tell  you  if  I  had. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Tell  us  why? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  haven't  it.     It  does  not  concern  me  at  all. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  much  do  you  sell  for  them  as  agent  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  are  selling  about  £50,000  a  year. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  your  business  in  selling  goods  as  agent  for 
crockery  people  ?  How  much  is  it  in  dollars  ?  Let  the  pounds  go. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Duty-paid  value  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  mean  your  firm  as  agent. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  My  firm  as  agent  is  not  separate  from  my  firm  as 
importer.  I  am  doing  business  both  ways.  I  am  selling  goods  for 
people  and  I  am  buying. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  much  is  the  entire  business  you  are  interested  in  ? 
Answer  the  question,  and  do  not  try  to  answer  something  else. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  If  I  can  get  a  clear  idea  of  what  you  mean,  I  will 
answer.  I  am  doing  an  agency  business  and  my  own  of,  perhaps, 
£100,000. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Half  a  million  dollars. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  percentage  of  commission  do  you  receive? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Two  and  one-half  per  cent  on  the  staple  goods. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  On  these  goods  you  have  beon  describing  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  do  you  receive  on  china  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Five  per  cent. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  sell  any  goods  except  imported  wares? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  deal  in  those  exclusively? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  sell  china? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Oh,  yes;  a  little. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  thought  you  said  you  were  not  interested  in 
china  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  said  I  sell  English  china,  which  does  not  enter 
into  competition  with  American  goods. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  vou  import  any  French  china? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  I  am  dealing  in  English  goods. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  only  agent  for  those  people  who  sell? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  am  agent  and  importer. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  sell  for  other  merchants  on  commission? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  sell  for  any  merchants. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  do  they  import  direct  from  France? 

78959°— VOL  1—13 37 


578  TAEIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  their  business.  I 
have  lots  to  do  to  attend  to  my  own  business. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  import  direct  from 
France  or  not  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Who  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  people  for  whom  you  do  business. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  people  for  whom  I  do  business  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Dolton,  for  instance.  Do  they  import  direct  from 
France  ?  Why  do  you  not  answer  my  question  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  My  dear  friend,  Dolton,  is  a  manufacturer  of  con- 
siderable standing  and  does  not  buy  goods  from  anybody. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  manufacture  in  France? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir;  they  manufacture  in  England. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  they  do  not  buy  any  goods? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  They  buy  the  materials,  of  course. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  do  not  buy  any  imported  goods?  Do  you 
understand  the  question?  I  want  you  to  answer  this:  Do  you  sell 
imported  china? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  sell  any  that  is  imported  direct,  either  by 
yourself  or  your  clients  or  your  principals,  from  France  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  is  all  bought  of  the  New  York  house  connected  with 
the  French  house  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  French  china  at  all. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  not  sell  French  china? 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  only  sell  English  china. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Exactly;  I  understand  you  now. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  It  took  a  long  while. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  suggest  a  new  paragraph  here  putting  in  certain 
other  wares  with  Rockingham  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  tried  to  do  that  under  the  present  law,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  At  the  customshouse  you  tried  to  do  that  under  the 
present  law  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  tried  to  do  it  before  the  Payne  committee  in 
190S. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  tried  it  before  the  appraisers,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  tried  to  substantiate  our  record  of  1908  before 
tlio  appraisers,  because  we  had  the  understanding  before  the  com- 
mittee beforehand. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  committee  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  Senate  committee,  when  we  were  present.  We 
presented  Senator  Allison's  letter,  and  Mr.  Aldrich  sat  there  and  said 
we  could  get  a  duty  of  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  tried  it  on  an  understanding  with  Mr.  Aldrich 
to  put  it  in  the  same  schedule  ( 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  We  tried  it   on  representations — 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  knew  the  language  in  that  paragraph  did  not  em- 
brace these  words,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  1  know  the  intention  was 


SCHEDULE   B.  579 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  know  the  language  of  that  law  did  not  embrace 
those  words,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  know  it  has  been  sp  construed,  but  I  did  not  know 
that  was  the  intention  when  we  put  it  up. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Did  you  sp  construe  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  certainly  did,  originally. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Did  the  other  importers  with  whom  you  do  business 
agree  with  you  ?  Did  they  agree  with  you  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Sure;  of  course,  they  did. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Did  not  some  of  them  protest  against  putting  in  that 
clause  and  say  that  it  was  ridiculous  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No;  you  have  the  wrong  idea. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  attempted  it  before  the  Board  of  Appraisers  and 
went  into  the  Customs  Court  and  were  heard  on  it  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir;  and  we  are  still  fighting. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  know  of  any  association  of  French  importers? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  never  heard  of  such  a  thing? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  An  association  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  An  association  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  United 
States  commission,  who  are  trying  to  ferret  out  alleged  customs 
frauds  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  The  only  help  I  ever  heard  of  the  United  States 
commission  getting  was  from  Mr.  Burgess's  visit  in  Paris. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  association  that  had  for  its  object  the  alleged 
assistance  of  the  United  States  in  getting  at  the  correct  valuation  of 
French  china  or  any  imported  china  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  You  will  have  to  kindly  excuse  me.  I  am  only 
interested  in  English  ware.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  other 
except  in  a  general  way. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  such  an  association  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  whether  an  associa- 
tion or  any  importers  of  French  china  offered  to  open  their  books  to 
the  United  States  commission  if  thev  wanted  to  send  people  over 
there  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  wonder  if  England  sent  a  commission  over  here, 
whether  our  people  would  open  their  books  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Will  you  answer  my  question? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  That  is  all;  I  really  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Why  not  say  so? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  may  turn  out  you  do.  You  do  not  know  anything 
about  imdervalutaion,  I  suppose  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  heard  of  it? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  have  heard  the  word;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  not  even  got  as  far  as  Mr.  Jones  in  the 
matter  of  suspicion  about  it. 

These  English  factories  have  advanced  their  goods  recently,  have 
they  not  ? 


580  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  are  still  selling  them? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  much  did  they  advance?  It  was  about  10  per 
cent,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Two  and  one-half  per  cent  on  gross  or  5  per  cent 
on  the  net  list. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  If  the  advance  is  5  per  cent,  how  are  they  able  to  sell 
at  American  prices  and  still  import  and  pay  an  honest  duty  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  They  do  not  sell  at  the  American  prices  by  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  sell  at  how  much  more  than  the  American  price  ? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Fifty  per  cent,  average. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  still  quality  is  substantially  the  same? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No;  the  products  are  better. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  These  presented  here  you  said  were  the  same,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  No;  I  said  they  were  substantially. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  did  not  say  identically  the  same;  I  said  substantially, 
too. 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  All  right. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  are  substantially  the  same? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  They  are  ^substantially  the  same. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  are  you  able  to  sell  goods  substantially  the  same 
as  the  American  goods  at  50  per  cent  more  than  then*  price? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  I  think  we  are  better  salesmen. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  you  an  American  citizen? 

Mr.  PITCAIRN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  PITCAIRX.  I  have  been  for  30  years. 

I  desire  to  submit  a  brief,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  do  so. 

The  brief  is  as  follows: 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  9,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives. 

DEAR  PIR:  I  represent  the  importers  of  English  china  and  earthenware  in  the  city 
of  New  York. 

Earthenware,  with  the  present  duty  of  55  per  cent  and  60  per  cent,  is  one  of  the 
highest  protected  industries  on  which  ad  valorem  rates  are  imposed. 

Under  the  present  tariff.  American  earthenware  is  protected  by  a  nominal  duty  of  55 
per  cent  on  white  and  60  per  cent  on  decorated  ware,  which  does  not  represent  the  full 
burden  levied  upon  this  commodity.  The  outside  packages,  which  are  costly  in 
themselves  abroad,  costing  $4  each,  are  dutiable  at  the  same  rate  as  the  contents,  and 
this  cost,  with  the  items  of  shipping  charges  and  ocean  freight,  amounts  to  82  per  cent 
on  decorated,  and  from  90  to  94  per  cent  on  white  ware. 

The  exorbitant  character  of  the  present  tariff  on  earthenware  can  be  best  illustrated 
by  a  comparison  of  the  selling  prices  of  the  English  and  domestic  products.  The 
comparison  is  simplified  by  the  fact  that  the  American  factories  adopted  the  English 
sterling  scale  at  an  established  ratio  oi  *S  per  pound  sterling.  In  the  following  illus- 
trations quotations  are  those  of  the  best  makers  in  each  country,  standard  brands  of 
ware,  in  usual  wholesale  quantities.  The  figures  represent  actual  transactions  at 
current  prices,  1912. 

Take,  for  example,  an  importation  of  white  granite  tableware.  The  plain  white 
ware  is  daily  used  by  millions  of  consumers. 

Exhibit  A  is  Johnson  Bros.,  English. 

Exhibit  B  is  Knowlcs,  Taylor  tk  Knowles,  American. 


SCHEDULE  B.  581 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
/- 

ENGLISH  No.  1. 

£      •.   d. 

10  crates  assorted  white  granite,  £16 160    0    0 

Discount,  57J  per  cent 92    0    0 


68    0    0 
Discount,  5  per  cent 380 


64  12    0 
Discount,  5  per  cent 3    4    6 


61     7    6 

£    a.  d. 

10  packages,  16s.  9d 876 


Value  at  factory,  £69  15s.,  at  £4.88 $340.  38 

£     s.    d. 

Freight  to  Liverpool,  800  pounds 2     13    4 

Dock  and  town  dues  and  commission. . .  84 


Consular  fee  

10 

4 

Bill  lading  

2 

0 

Sea  freight  to  New  York,  510  feet,  10s.  ton  

6       4 

0 

AO    OO 

Value  at  New  York  port  

388  70 

$340  duty,  at  55  per  cent  

187  00 

Customs  entry.  ;  

1  50 

577.  20 
(100-piece  dinner  set,  $4.80.) 

Same  assortment  K.  T.  K.  American,  £160  in  bulk  at  factory,  $8  per  pound, 

sterling $1,  280.  00 

Discount  66|  per  cent 853.'  33 

426.  67 
Discount  5  per  cent 21.33 


405.34 
Discount  1  per  cent \ 4. 05 


401.  29 

(100-piece  dinner  set,  $3.36.) 

This  shows  that  the  English  ware  costs  40  per  cent  more  than  the  American  selling 
price. 

ENGLISH  No.  2. 

Taking  the  same  10-crate  lot  and  comparing  the  prices  without  any  duty  the  result 
is  as  follows: 

10  crates  English  at  factory $340.38 

Expense  to  New  York 48.  32 

388.  70 


Cost  before  any  duty 388.  70 

American  selling  price 401.  29 

From  which  it  is  easily  demonstrated  that  a  duty  of  4  per  cent  would  equalize  the 
cost  of  English  white  granite  with  the  selling  price  of  American  ware  of  the  same 
grade. 

ENGLISH  No.  3. 

It  will  be  both  illuminating  and  interesting  to  carry  this  example  a  step  further, 
using  the  same  10-crate  lot  as  specified,  and  compare  the  percentage  of  labor,  mate- 
rial, etc.,  between  the  foreign  and  domestic  costs.  The  percentages  quoted  for  England 


582  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

are  those  claimed  and  conceded  by  the  most  prominent  English  potters.  Those  for 
American  are  the  official  figures  quoted  by  Mr.  Burgess,  the  United  States  potters' 
representative.  (Tariff  hearing,  Sixtieth  Congress.  First  Print,  No.  28,  December  7, 
1908,  pp.  4008,  Table  X.) 

English.  American. 

Factory $340.38     $401.29 

Fuel  and  materials 45  per  cent..     153.19    38  per  cent 152.48 

Labor  and  salaries . 45  per  cent..     153.19    52  per  cent 208.80 

Interest  and  profit 10  per  cent..       34.00    10  per  cent 40.01 

The  total  difference  in  labor  cost  is  $56,  the  duty  paid  at  present  tariff  is  $187,  which 
is  about  233  per  cent  more  than  the  difference  in  labor  costs,  as  above  proved.  The 
conclusion  is  irresistible,  the  tariff  on  earthenware  is  exorbitant,  excessive,  and 
unjustifiable.  As  stated  at  the  beginning,  it  is  practically  prohibitive.  English 
imports  in  1892  were  100,000  crates.  In  1912,  35,000  crates. 

The  difference  in  cost  of  production  at  home  and  in  England  (from  which  country 
90  per  cent  of  the  earthenware  coming  into  the  United  States  is  imported)  can  not  be 
fairly  shown  by  the  weekly  wage  scale  paid  -to  labor,  and  such  reckoning  is  without 
value,  for  the  unit  cost  of  ware  made  by  potters  earning  $20  per  week  may  be  less  than 
that  produced  by  workmen  making  the  same  article  and  earning  $10  per  week. 
Labor  cost  of  an  article  depends  on  the  relation  between  labor  and  output.  Undoubt- 
edly the  inequalities  in  the  wages  of  the  English  and  domestic  operatives  are  more 
than  equaled  by  the  increased  production  by,  and  greater  efficiency  of,  the  latter. 

DECORATION 

It  is  to  be  specially  noted  that  the  characteristic  of  decoration  in  earthenware  to-day 
is  the  gold  treatment  finishing  each  article.  The  gold  used  by  potters  is  the  same 
value  in  the  United  States  and  England,  so  that  on  this  preponderating  item  of  all 
decoration  60  per  cent  duty  on  gold  is  a  terrific  tax.  Here  is  a  white  granite 
plate  from  Johnson  Bros.,  England,  and  this  other  is  white  ware  from  Knowles, 
Taylor  &  Knowles,  East  Liverpool.  The  English  ware  cost  at  the  port  of  entry,  duty 
paid,  $4.80  for  a  100-piece  dinner  set.  The  domestic  factory  sells  the  same  set  at 
$3.36.  Here  is  a  white  and  gold  decoration  from  the  factory  of  W.  H.  Gridley  &  Co., 
England.  It  cost,  duty  paid,  at  the  port  of  entry  $8.48  for  a  100-piece  dinner  set. 
The  same  identical  decoration  was  reproduced  by  Homer  Laughlin  Co.,  as  shown  in 
this  illustration,  and  is  sold  by  that  firm  for  $6  for  a  100-piece  set  of  the  same 
composition . 

In  both  these  examples — the  white  and  the  decorated — the  English  costs  on  the 
dock,  duty  paid,  40  per  cent  more  than»the  domestic  selling  price  at  factory.  And 
yet  this  committee  was  informed  yesterday  morning  by  Mr.  Burgess  and  Mr.  Wells  of 
the  American  potters  that  their  profits  were  restrained  to  about  7  per  cent  by  virtue 
of  the  competition  of  the  foreign  wares. 

Mr.  Burgess  took  occasion  to  mention  that  a  very  important  English  competitor — 
Johnson  Bros. — declared  a  few  years  ago  a  dividend  of  £66,000.  He  carefully  omitted 
to  mention  that  Johnsons  are  the  largest  sanitary  manufacturers  in  England,  and  the 
bulk  of  their  large  profit  came  from  the  sale  of  that  product,  which  is  excluded  abso- 
lutely from  the  American  market  by  the  prevailing  tariff. 

GEOGRAPHICAL   PROTECTION    IS    NOT   A    MYTH — THE    DISADVANTAGE    OF    DISTANCE. 

In  addition  to  the  present  tax  of  55  and  60  per  cent,  we  wish  to  emphasize  the  sub- 
stantial protection  afforded  by  the  heavy  expense  of  bringing  earthenware  to  this 
country  from  England.  The  freights  from  Staffordshire  to  Liverpool  and  sea  freight 
to  an  American  port  amount  to  approximately  15  per  cent  in  the  value  of  the  cheaper 
grades  of  ware  and  10  per  cent  on  the  best  grades.  The  Atlantic  sea  freights  alone 
have  been  increased  in  the  last  four  years  over  200  per  cent,  and  the  sea  freight  on  a 
crate  has  advanced  from  80  cents  to  $2.  Mr.  Burgess  stated  yesterday  that  sea  freight 
from  Liverpool  to  Baltimore  was  8  cents  per  100  pounds.  The  fact  is  the  rate  is  25 
cents  per  100  pounds — quite  a  difference.  These  transportation  charges  alone  con- 
sJitute  a  big  protection  against  foreign  goods.  Under  such  conditions  a  duty  of  03 
per  cent  on  earthenware  would  be  more  than  generous  protection. 


SCHEDULE   B.  583 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

SELLING   PRICES. 

During  the  past  few  years  the  conditions  of  manufacture  in  England  (the  chief 
country  exporting  earthenware  here)  have  changed  tremendously,  owing  to  increased 
cost  of  coal  and  materials  and  to  industrial  legislation .  The  English  factories  have  been 
compelled  to  advance  their  prices  very  substantially,  varying  on  the  different  classes 
of  ware  from  12J  per  cent  to  22  per  cent,  as  follows: 


Old  dis- 
count. 

New  dis- 
count. 

Increase. 

White  granite  

Per  cent. 
60 

Per  cent. 
55 

Per  cent. 
12  i 

Transfers,  gilt  edge  

27J 

17J 

131 

Prints: 
Best.                             

45 

35 

17* 

Common  grade  

55 

45 

22 

During  the  same  period  American  prices  have  remained  practically  unchanged,  so 
that  this  increased  cost  of  foreign  ware,  with  60  per  cent  duty  added,  constitutes  a 
very  heavy  extra  burden  on  the  imported  products. 


OUTSIDE   PACKAGES. 

We  earnestly  protest  against  the  unfair  and  onerous  tax  of  55  and  60  per  cent  on 
the  crates,  casks,  and  packages  in  which  earthenware  is  packed  and  shipped.  To 
insure  safe  transportation  these  packages  have  to  be  very  substantial  and  are  very 
expensive.  The  ordinary  crate  costs  at  the  factory  16/9  net  ($4.10),  and  plus  the  60 
per  cent  dutv,  $6.55.  It  is  readily  seen  that  this  item  is  a  very  heavy  burden  on  the 
common  grades  of  ware,  a  crate  containing  (duty  paid)  $60,  and  is  inequitable  because 
it  rests  most  heavily  on  the  cheaper  ware  which  goes  to  the  mass  of  the  consumers. 
Crates  and  casks  are  produced  in  America  fully  as  cheaply  as  in  England  and  are  not 
entitled  to  duty  at  the  same  rate  as  the  contents.  We  urge  the  abolition  of  any  tax 
on  outside  packages. 

I  will  not  attempt  to  go  into  details  on  the  various  costs  of  production  further  than 
to  note  that  when  Mr.  Burgess  claims  to  put  66  per  cent  of  the  selling  price  in  the  pay 
envelope  his  figures  do  not  agree  with  his  own  table  of  production  and  wages,  which 
show  only  52  per  cent  in  the  pay  envelope. 

I  might  also  refer  to  the  discrepancy  in  his  claim  that  in  the  United  States  pottery 
industry  100  males  are  employed  to  19  females.  Mr.  Wells,  in  his  statement  before 
this  committee  in  1908,  stated  that  his  factory  employed  794  people,  namely,  508 
males  and  288  females,  which  is  a  very  different  ratio — 100  to  57. 

DIVISION    OF    SCHEDULE    OF    EARTHENWARE    AND   CHINA. 

We  strongly  advocate  rates  of  duty  separating  these  classes  of  ware  and  favoring 
the  earthenware  products  for  many  forcible  reasons. 

First.  The  sale  of  earthenware  has  been  almost  eliminated  by  reason  of  the  high 
prohibitive  rates  of  5o  and  60  per  cent  duty  in  force.  English  earthenware  imports 
have  decreased  from  $4,500,000  in  1892  to  $2,000,000  in  1912.  In  the  same  period  do- 
mestic production  increased  from  $8,800,000  to  approximately  $17,000,000. 

Second.  The  domestic  industry  would  be  helped  rather  than  injured  by  the  compe- 
tition with  good  English  ware,  and  without  this  stimulus  and  incentive  would  deterio- 
rate both  in  quality  and  efficiency.  The  American  potters  themselves  strongly  advo- 
cate this  division  of  this  schedule  as  being  in  the  interest  of  the  industry.  Mr.  Wells, 
representing  the  United  States  Potters'  Association,  said  (tariff  hearing,  60th  Cong., 
first  print,  No.  15,  Nov.  24,  1908,  p.  1748):  "There  is  as  much  reason  why  China  and 
earthenware  should  be  assessed  in  separate  paragraphs,  and  at  separate  rates  as  there 
is  that  plate  glass  and  window  glass  should  be  assessed  separately,  or  that  silks,  woolens, 
and  linens  should  be  covered  by  separate  paragraphs."  Mr.  Burgess  representing  the 
domestic  potters  (first  print,  No'.  28,  pp.  3999^000):  "We  believe  the  tune  has  arrived 
when  these  classes  of  merchandise  should  be  separately  classified  and  different  rates 
fixed  on  China  and  earthenwares.  They  differ  in  many  particulars  as  greatly  as  do 
cotton  and  silk. 


584  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   92-9-1— POTTERY. 

TO   SUMMARIZE. 

We  claim  that  the  American  potter  has  practically  solved  the  problems  of  earthen- 
ware manufacture;  that  the  domestic  industry  has  passed  completely  out  of  the  stage 
of  infancy  to  full  adult  maturity,  and  no  longer  requires  or  is  entitled  to  the  prac- 
tically prohibitive  tax  now  existing.  We  ask  relief  from  the  exorbitant  unnecessary 
duty  of  55  and  60  per  cent  and  urge  a  rate  of  30  per  cent  on  earthenware  and  35  per  cent 
on  china  as  abundant,  fair,  and  equitable,  both  to  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer. 

N.  B. — We  think  it  should  be  prominently  noted  that  sanitary  ware,  common  yellow 
ware,  and  common  salt-glaze  stoneware  are  practically  excluded  from  this  country 
by  the  present  rates  of  duty.  The  freight  alone  on  such  heavy  bulk  is  sufficient 
protection. 

On  a  shipment  of  12  crates  by  the  steamship  West  Point  to  Philadelphia,  December, 
1912,  the  factory  value  was  £54 16s.  and  the  sea  freight  alone  was  £20 18s.,  amounting  to 
38  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  goods.  We  therefore  recommend  that  the  duty  on  these 
lines  should  not  exceed  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

SCHEDULE  B,  PARAGRAPHS  92,  93,  94. 

92.  Common  yellow,  brown,  red,  or  gray  earthenware;  brown  stoneware;  plain, 
embossed,  or  salt-glazed  stoneware  and  crucibles,  all  the  foregoing  not  decorated  in 
any  manner,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

93.  China,  porcelain,  bisque,  and  Parian  ware  composed  of  a  nonabsorbent  and 
translucent  body,  not  specially  provided  for,  including  clock  cases  with  or  without 
movements,  and  all  other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware, 
all  of  the  foregoing  plain,  embossed  or  decorated,  in  any  manner,  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

94.  Earthenware,  stoneware,  crockery,  white  granite,  and  eemiporcelain,  whether 
or  not  vitrified  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  whether  or  not  composed  of  a  hard  opaque  but 
porous  body  capable  of  absorbing  moislure,  including  plates,  cups,  saucers,  and  other 
articles  or  pieces,  such  as  are  commonly  used  in  breakfast,  dinner,  tea,  and  similar 
table  sets,  toilet  sets,  hotel  ware,  Pill  tiles,  clock  cases,  with  or  without  movements, 
placques,  ornaments,  toys,  vases,  statues,  statuettes,  mugs,  steins,  and  lamps,  to- 
gether with  all  other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware,  all  of 
the  foregoing,  plain,  embossed  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Rockingham,  jet  and  samian  ware,  plain  or  decorated,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

SCHEDULE  B. — Section  85,  tiles  and  quarries. 

We  submit  that  the  present  rate  of  8  cents  per  square  foot  is  excessive  and  should  be 
reduced  to  4  cents  per  square  foot,  and  quarries  should  not  exceed  15  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

We  append  examples  showing  that  the  duty  on  tiles  at  8  cents  per  square  foot  is 
equivalent  to  more  than  60  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  on  quarrie?  the  sea  and  ocean 
freight  alone  are  equivalent  to  160  per  cent  ad  valorem,  without  any  duty  added  what- 
ever. 

EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

£       s.     d. 
20  casks  containing  200  square  yards  (1 ,600  square  feet),  unselected  quality, 

white  earthenware  tiles. ,  6  by  6  or  6  by  3,  at  5/9  per  square  yard 57     10    0 

Less  10  and  5..  .869 


49      3    3 


At  $4.88  per  pound $239.  71 

Duly  is  8  cents  per  square  foot  (1,800  square  feet) 144. 00 

Equal  to  more  than  60  per  cent  No.  2. 


QUARRIES. 


The  cheapest  kind  of  red  flooring  tile,  9  by  9  size. 
Present  rate  of  duty  is  45  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost  at  factory 100/  per  1,000 

Freight  from  factory  to  Liverpool 101/  per  1,000 

Ocean  freight  to  New  York GO/  per  1,000 


SCHEDULE  B.  585 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

From  the  above  example  we  show  that  the  freight  alone  to  Liverpool  is  more  than 
100  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  goods  at  the  factory  and  that  the  sea  freight  to  New  York 
is  equal  to  60  per  cent  of  the  goods  at  the  factory.  We,  therefore,  submit  that  the 
geographical  protection  is  more  than  abundant  and  we  ask  a  reduction  on  this  class  to 
15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

W.  S.  PITCAIEN. 

G.  B.  JONES. 

The  following  telegrams  were  also  submitted  by  the  witness: 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 
W.  S.  PITCAIRN,  Washington,  D.  C. 

We  most  heartily  indorse  suggested  new  tariff  rates  china  35  and  earthenware  25, 
considering  both  fair  and  equitable. 

THE  KJNNEY  &  LEVAN  Co. 

CHICAGO,  January  7,  19 IS. 
W.  S.  PITCAIRN,  Washington,  D.  C. 

We  just  wired  the  Hon.  Oscar  Underwood  as  follows:  As  extensive  handlers  of  both 
foreign  and  domestic  earthenware  and  French  and  German  china,  we  strongly  recom- 
mend a  duty  as  follows:  Earthenware  25  per  cent,  and  china  35  per  cent.  We  author- 
ize you  to  advocate  the  above  rates  in  our  behalf. 

BURLEY  &  TYRILL. 

ST.  JOSEPH,  Mo.,  January  7,  191S. 
G.  B.  JONES  or  W.  S.  PITCAIRN, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Thirty-five  cents  on  china  and  25  on  earthenware  is  a  fair  and  equitable  rate  of  duty. 
We  handle  both  American  and  imported  china  and  earthenware. 

REQNIER  &  SHOUP  CROCKERY  Co. 


SAN  FRANCISCO,  GAL.,  January  7,  19 IS. 
WM.  PITCAIRN,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Think  35  on  china  and  25  on  earthenware  reasonable  duty. 

DORHMANN  COMMERCIAL  Co. 

INDIANAPOLIS,  IND.,  January  7,  1913. 
WM.  S.  PITCAIRN,  Washington,  D.  C. 
We  fully  indorse  your  request.  HOLLWEO  &  REESE. 

TOLEDO,  OHIO,  January  8,  1913. 
W.  S.  PITCAIRN,  Washington,  D.  C. 
We  indorse  25  on  both  china  and  earthenware. 

DAUDT  GLASS  &  CROCKERY  Co. 

PORTLAND,  OREO.,  January  7,  1913. 
W.  S.  PrrcAiRN, 

Washington.  D.  C. 

We  are  in  favor  of  reduction  of  duty  on  china  and  earthenware,  and  indorse  your 
proposed  new  rates  of  35  on  china  and  25  on  earthenware. 

PRAEL  HEGELE  &  Co. 

MILWAUKEE,  Wis.,  January  7, 1913. 
GEO.  B.  JONES,  Washington,  D.  C.: 
We  indorse  the  request  of  new  rates  mentioned  in  your  telegram. 

WILD  &  ROHN. 


586 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94^POTTERY. 

PORTLAND,  OREG.,  January  7,  1913. 
GEO.  B.  JONES,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Fully  indorse  proposed  rates  earthenware.    Will  cheerfully  give  all  assistance  pos- 
sible. 

M.  SELLERS  &  Co. 


KANSAS  CITY,  Mo.,  January  7-8,  1913. 
G.  B.  JONES,   Washington,  D.  C.: 

We  fully  indorse  your  request  for  new  rate  of  duty  china  35  per  cent,  earthenware 
25  per  cent.  We  believe  these  rates  to  be  fair  alike  to  American  manufacturers, 
to  dealers,  and  to  consumers.  Goods  in  bond  should  be  subject  to  new  rates  of  duty 
when  released. 

T.  M.  JAMES  &  SONS. 

ADDITIONAL  BRIEF  OP  W.  S.  PTTCAIRN  ET  AL. 

A   FEW   ILLUMINATING   FACTS    AND   FIGURES. 

Domestic  productions  and  importations,  1912. 


- 

Domestic. 

Imports. 

Par.  92,  common  yellow  and  brown  earthenware  kitchen  utensils,  salt-glaze 

$14,000,000 

$150,000 

Pars  93  and  9<i  earthenware  table  and  toilet  ware,  etc 

15,000,000 

1,850,000 

Total  earthenware  

29,000,000 

2,000,000 

Pars.  93  and  94,  china,  tea,  and  table  ware,  bric-a-brac,  and  fancy  ornaments. 

2,000,000 

8,000,000 

The  foreign  value  of  earthenware  imported  is  only  7  per  cent  of  the  domestic  pro- 
duction and  decreasing  each  year. 

Of  China  the  domestic  production  is  practically  all  hotel  china,  as  the  domestic 
potter  (except  Lennox  of  Trenton)  has  never  seriously  attempted  to  manufacture 
china  dinner  ware,  which  must  therefore  be  supplied  from  the  foreign  factories.  It 
is  true  a  large  quantity  of  domestic  ware  is  sold  and  misbranded  "china,"  but  is 
actually  and  only  earthenware. 

FACTS    VERSUS    STATEMENTS    OF    WILLIAM   BURGESS. 

In  the  brief  presented  January  8.  1913.  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Mr. 
William  Burgess,  representative  of  the  United  States  Potters  Association,  quotes  a 
mass  of  statistics  so  flagrantly  erroneous  as  to  merit  flat  contradiction.  He  states 
that  his  figures  were  obtained  while  he  occupied  the  position  of  United  States 
consul  at  Tunstall.  England.  That  was  in  1890,  over  20  years  ago,  and  every  intelli- 
gent man  knows  that  industrial  conditions  have  vastly  changed  in  that  period.  His 
quotations  for  English  labor  and  material  are  identically  the  same  as  he  quoted 
before  the  Payne  committee  in  1908  (Print  28,  pp.  4000-4008),  and  represented  earn- 
ings during  a  period  when  English  factories  were  working  about  three  days  a  week. 
Mr.  Burgess  is  careful  to  quote  advances  since  1908  in  American  labor,  but  entirely 
ignores  similar  material  advances  in  the  English  market,  and  present  wages  under 
full  time. 

Coal  a  Ittary  item  of  cost. 


Mr.  Bur- 
gess's 
figures. 

Actual 
prices, 
December, 
1912. 

English  coal,  Staffordshire.    . 

$2.56 

$3.60 

English  slack  

1.38 

2.56 

SCHEDULE   B. 


587 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94^POTTERY. 

Labor  in  England  per  week  of  50  hours. 


Mr.  Bur- 
gess's 
figures. 

Actual 
figures, 
1912. 

$6.90 

$19.85 

8.42 

18.50 

Dish  maker  (man)                         

7.22 

11.69 

5.94 

15.80 

4.94 

9.24 

Cup  maker  (woman)  

4.06 

7.79 

On  page  372  (Underwood  Tariff  Hearing  No.  3,  p.  — ),  Mr.  Burgess  compares 
the  total  cost  of  an  American  and  English  factory  output,  in  a  vain  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  domestic  white  ware  costs  78  per  cent  more  than  English.  Here  again  Mr. 
Burgess's  figures  of  1913  are  identical  with  those  of  1908,  although  he  claims  to  be 
paying  about  20  per  cent  higher  for  labor  and  materials. 

Here  are  the  actual  selling  prices  of  this  output  based  on  1912  quotations  of  standard 
brands: 


Mr.  Bur- 
gess's fig- 
ures. 

Actual 
figures. 

English  product,  packed  at  Staffordshire  factory      .           

$64,649.19 
115,263.28 

$86,459.63 
101,937.63 

Domestic  product,  in  bulk,  at  East  Liverpool,  Ohio  

The  difference  is  18  and  not  78  per  cent,  and  if  the  expense  of  freights,  etc.,  be 
added,  there  would  be  practically  no  difference  in  cost  whatever.  The  English  ware 
at  the  port  of  entry,  without  any  duty,  would  be  almost  on  a  parity  with  the  domestic 
selling  price. 

We  submit  that  the  tariff  of  55  and  60  per  cent  on  earthenware  is  excessive  and 
prohibitive.  We  urge  a  separate  classification  of  paragraphs  93  and  94  for  china  and 
earthenware,  with  a  duty  not  exceeding  30  per  cent  on  earthenware. 

WM.  S.  PITCAIRN. 

GEO.  B.  JONES. 

JOHN  B.  MILLER. 

STATEMENT  OF  CHARLES  L.  CASEY,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 
GUERNSEY  EARTHENWARE  CO. 

PARAGRAPH  93. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  As  to  what  paragraph  do  you  speak  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Paragraph  93,  Schedule  B. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Proceed. 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  am  here,  gentlemen,  representing  the  Guernsey 
Earthenware  Co.  and  its  employees,  of  Cambridge,  Ohio.  We  ask 
that  we  be  continued  under  the  same  classification  with  a  duty  of  60 
per  cent  as  now  obtains  by  paragraph  93,  Schedule  B,  of  the  act  of 
1909,  and  protesting  against  any  reduction  of  the  present  duty. 

There  are  many  reasons  for  us  doing  so.  We  are  manufacturing 
a  very  complete  line  of  earthenware  cooking  utensils,  sold  under  the 
trade  name  "Guernsey,"  consisting  of  brown  earthenware  outer  body, 
white  enamel  lining  inside,  with  a  clear  glaze  over  the  whole  surface. 
This  product  we  have  been  manufacturing  some  10  years,  starting  in  a 
very  small  way  along  with  other  wares  that  we  were  manufacturing 


588  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   92-94— POTTEBY. 

on  so  close  a  margin  that  we  were  fortunate  to  stay  in  business,  so 
much  so  that  it  was  simply  a  question  of  doing  something,  developing 
a  new  industry;  in  other  words,  a  new  line  of  earthenware  in  this 
country. 

We  are  the  first  American  producers  of  the  casserole,  and  we 
believe,  gentlemen,  you  appreciate  what  we  have  done  along  the 
lines  of  good  cooking.  In  fact,  to  some  extent  we  have  cheapened 
the  high  cost  of  living,  you  might  say,  by  making  cheap  cuts  of  meat 
more  tender  and  delicious. 

At  the  beginning,  and  for  the  first  six  years,  our  business  grew 
very  slowly  from  a  few  thousand  dollars  annually  along  to  $45,000 
in  1908,  this  being  a  period  of  six  years  strenuous  hard  work  and 
discouraging  results,  notwithstanding  the  fact  of  paying  the  closest 
attention  to  details  and  applying  modern  methods,  not  alone  in 
manufacturing  but  also  finding  a  market  and  selling  our  product. 
There  were  many  reasons  for  discouragement,  perhaps  the  principal 
one  after  we  had  successfully  mastered  the  manufacturing  end  being 
the  classification  of  similar  wares  on  import.  Just  about  this  time  a 
decision  was  given  by  the  Board  of  Appraisers,  Customhouse,  New 
York  City,  giving  similar  wares  a  classification  under  55  per  cent 
duty,  and  at  the  last  hearing  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in 
1909  they  gave  us  the  benefit  of  an  extra  5  per  cent,  making  the 
present  duty  60  per  cent. 

Now,  gentlemen,  during  the  past  four  years  we  have  increased  our 
production,  we  have  given  our  labor  the  benefits  of  20  per  cent  to  25 
per  cent  increase  of  wages,  and  at  the  same  time  the  consumer,  the 
American  merchant,  the  benefit  of  a  reduction  in  price,  running 
through  the  whole  line  from  10  per  cent  to  20  per  cent  in  his  cost  or 
purchasing  price.  To-day  he  can  buy  our  wares,  or  those  of  a  simi- 
lar kind  on  import,  from  40  per  cent  to  50  per  cent  less  than  10 
years  ago. 

For  instance,  a  custard  cup,  similar  to  the  one  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
would  have  cost  him  72  cents  per  dozen  duty  paid  on  import,  f .  o.  b. 
New  York  City,  10  years  ago.  To-day  the  same  thing  can  be  pur- 
chased on  import  for  47  cents  per  dozen,  duty  paid,  f.  o.  b.  New  York 
City.  Our  price,  f.  o.  b.  Cambridge,  Ohio,  is  49  cents  per  dozen. 

We  also  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  exhibits,  all  being 
standard  shapes  and  sizes,  which  we  have  filed  along  with  our  brief, 
showing  the  difference  in  price  on  all  items  in  favor  of  ike  foreign 
manufacturer  or  importer.  Through  our  whole  line,  gentlemen,  there 
are  no  exceptions.  The  foreign  manufacturer,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
importer,  can  and  does  undersell  us  from  5  per  cent  to  25  per  cent, 
in  some  instances  more,  and  after  paying  a  duty  of  60  per  cent. 

Notwithstanding  these  conditions,  we  are  satisfied  to  meet  them 
as  competitors  and  ask  that  the  present  duty  of  60  per  cent  be  con- 
tinued. We  will  file  our  brief  and  honestly  ask  your  careful  con- 
sideration of  the  same. 

Our  factory,  located  at  Cambridge,  Ohio,  is  open  for  the  inspection 
of  your  committee.  We  will  be  very  glad  to  show  you  our  methods 
that  you  may  see  what  we  have  and  what  we  are  doing. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Are  .you  willing  to  accept  a  rate  on  the  article  that  is 
imported  here  by  this  underselling? 


SCHEDULE  B.  589 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  CASEY.  We  are  perfectly  content  to  meet  them  as  a  competitor, 
for  the  reason  that  we  have  one  advantage  of  being  able  to  deliver 
goods  promptly. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  notwithstanding  the  fact  they  undersell  you,  you 
are  still  willing  to  meet  them  in  the  market  where  that  is  done  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir;  the  quality  of  the  ware  entering  into  it  as  a 
consideration. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  comes  in  under  the  60  per  cent  duty? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  have  any  idea  how  much  of  that  class 
you  produce  is  imported  into  this  country  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Four  years  ago  there  was  something  like  $120,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  do  you  think  the  American  production 
was  last  year  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  How  much  the  American  production  was? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes;  about? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  do  not  know  as  to  that;  we  sold  hi  the  vicinity  of 
$180,000  to  $185,000  last  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  sell  all  of  it,  do  you? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Oh,  no.  In  the  last  few  years  possible  six  to  seven  or 
eight  factories  are  manufacturing  lines  similar  to  ours,  but  not 
exclusively. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  suppose  there  is  as  much  as  a  million  dollars 
of  that  kind  of  goods  produced  hi  this  country  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  wish  in  your  brief  you  would  get  up  the  statistics 
of  the  American  production  of  that  class  of  articles,  and  also  what 
amount  you  think  of  the  $8,000,000  imported  under  that  clause, 
under  the  60  per  cent  duty,  constituted  this  class  of  goods.  You 
think  about  $120,000,  you  say? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  should  say  $125,000  to  $150,000.  It  would  be  hard 
to  say  without  looking  it  up. 

Mr  KITCHIN.  I  say,  look  it  up,  and  include  it  in  your  brief,  if  you 
will. 

Mr.  CASEY.  Very  well. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  amount  of  goods  are  imported  of  the  character 
where  they  undersell  you? 
.    Mr.  CASEY.  Really,  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  have  no  idea  at  all  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  When  did  you  begin  this  business  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  have  been  in  the  business  about  12  years,  and  manu- 
facturing this  particular  line  something  like  10  years. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  you  engaged  hi  the  business  of  manufacturing 
this  line  of  ware  exclusively,  and  doing  nothing  else  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  you  have  been  doing  that  exclusively  for  12 
years  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Oh,  no;  just  the  last  three  years. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Was  there  anybody  else  in  the  business  of  the  manu- 
facture of  this  kind  of  ware  before  12  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  No,  sir. 


590  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  was  the  duty  on  the  article  at  that  i;ime  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  It  was  rather  a  peculiar  condition  that  faced  me  in  this 
business.  It  was  to  get  something,  to  do  something — 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is  what  we  all  go  into  business  for. 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir!  It  developed  after  investigation  that  some- 
thing had  to  be  done.  The  business  was  on  so  close  a  margin.  I 
took  up  the  manufacturing  of  this  particular  class  of  ware,  and  after 
we  had  developed  our  business  and  experimented  on  it  for  years,  and 
were  becoming  a  contender  on  the  market  with  the  importers,  for- 
eign manufacturer,  then  the  price  was  cut. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  price  where  was  cut  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  What  ware  was  cut  ? 

Mr.  PALMER.  At  what  point  was  the  price  cut  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  All  over  the  country. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  was  the  reason  for  that  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  They  probably  wanted  to  put  me  out  of  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Oh,  they  were  organized  against  you  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  do  not  know  that  they  were  organized,  but  it  was 
simply  a  question  of  getting  the  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Because  these  other  people  who  had  been  in  business 
cut  the  price  to  the  consumer,  you  asked  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee three  years  ago  to  increase  the  duty,  which  they  did. 

Mr.  CASEY.  Five  per  cent. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Were  you  able  to  make  some  money  after  1909? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Not  very  much. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  answer,  I  do  not  know 
what  "very  much"  means  in  your  mind. 

Mr.  CASEY.  We  really  are  not  entirely  out  of  debt  at  this  time,  if 
that  will  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  big  an  investment  have  you  got  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  should  say  in  the  neighborhood  of  $140,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  own  it  all  yourself  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Not  all  of  it;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  were  making  a  profit  on  your  ware  before  the 
Payne  bill  was  passed  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  No,  sir;  it  was  simply  an  uphill  fight  from  year  to  year, 
to  make  ends  meet. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  5  per  cent  additional  duty  which  you  received 
under  the  Payne  bill  made  it  possible  for  you  to  make  a  profit  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  The  increase  in. my  production  and  in  volume  of  busi- 
ness, which  I  was  able  to  do  by  creating  a  demand  for  my  particular 
line,  gave  me  some  profit. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTII.  To-day  there  is  a  substantial  importation  of 
your  class  of  goods. 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes.  There  is  not  a  city  you  can  go  into  without  find- 
ing this  foreign  ware  at  a  lower  price  than  we  are  selling. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  technical — the  commercial  name  for  this 
class  of  goods  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  It  is  brown,  white-lined  enameled  earthenware. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  It  comes  in  under  paragraph  93  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes. 


SCHEDULE  B.  591 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  order  to  make  your  business  successful,  you  have 
added  tjje  tariff  of  60  per  cent  to  the  foreign  price  and  this  makes 
your  price  ? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir.  If  you  were  to  cut  the  duty  here  a  very  few 
per  cent,  I  question  very  much  if  we  could  do  business  at  all. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  At  60  per  cent  there  is  substantial  competition? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir.  To-day  there  is  not  a  city  in  the  United 
States  you  can  not  go  into  and  see  the  foreign-manufactured  ware, 
competing  with  ours. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  make  yours  as  good  as  the  foreign? 

Mr.  CASEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  a  little  better? 

Mr.  CASEY.  I  think  it  is  a  little  better. 

CAMBRIDGE,  OHIO,  January  1,  191$. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

The  Guernsey  Earthenware  Co.  herewith  submits  in  as  condensed  and  compact  a 
form  as  possible  its  application  for  the  retention  of  the  present  rate  of  duty  upon  one 
line  of  earthenware,  to  wit: 

"Earthenware  cooking  utensils,  brown,  white-lined,  enameled,  provided  for  by 
paragraph  93  of  Schedule  B  of  the  present  act  of  1909,  60  per  cent. 

The  plant  is  at  Cambridge,  Guernsey  County,  Ohio. 

Production  is  strictly  limited  by  the  fact  that  the  potter's  wheel  and  hand  labor 
must  be  depended  upon.  Labor-saving  machinery  in  this  respect  is  unattainable. 
We  can  not  hope,  therefore,  to  reduce  our  labor  cost  below  55  per  cent  to  60  per  cent. 

This  industry  falls  strictly  within  the  definition  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  of  one  entitled  to  protection,  namely:  It  is  new  in  this  country;  it  is  an  infant 
industry;  it  is  desirable  to  be  established;  and  it  is  handicapped  by  foreign  com- 
petition. 

Ought  not  this  "world  power"  to  make  its  own  stewpans?  What  we  make  is 
cooking  ware  and  that  only. 

We  simply  can  not  do  this  business  unless  we  can  be  adequately  protected  against 
European  competition,  that  of  Germany  in  particular. 

We  present  the  following  statements  of  fact,  and  shall  be  glad  to  amplify  them,  or  to 
furnish  proof  of  any  or  all  of  them: 

This  is  a  new  industry;  because  it  is  only  12  years  old;  because  it  makes  earthenware 
cooking  utensils  (brown,  white-lined,  enameled),  heretofore  successfully  made  only  in 
France  and  Germany. 

This  is  an  infant  industry;  because  it  is  new,  as  stated;  because  this  is  the  only  fac- 
tory in  the  United  States  making  this  particular  line  of  earthenware  in  such  quality 
as  can  compete  for  quality  with  foreign-made  ware  of  this  class.  Other  factories,  how- 
ever, are  trying. 

This  is  a  native  industry;  because  it  is  located  in  Ohio,  and  its  earthenware  is  made 
of  Ohio  clays  in  an  original  and  secret  mixture;  because  much  of  its  labor  it  must 
educate  and  train  out  of  native  material. 

This  is  a  weak  industry  because  it  is  profitless  except  upon  a  large  volume  of  busi- 
ness, and  because  a  large  volume  of  business  is  impossible  with  American  labor  unless 
there  is  substantial  protection  against  European  labor.  Because  importing  houses 
in  this  country,  not  being  manufacturers,  can  temporarily  cut  prices  and  destroy  this 
industry,  and  then  raise  prices  at  will,  except  for  adequate  protection. 

This  is  a  growing  industry.  From  an  investment  of  about  $55,000  in  the  year  1900 
to  a  present  investment  of  a'bout  $185,000.  From  about  12  to  18  employees  in  1900  to 
155  at  present.  From  an  original  pay  roll  of  about  $560  per  month  to  a  present  pay 
roll  of  $8,000  per  month.  From  sales  of  this  ware  of  about  $45,000  in  1908  to  about 
$185,000  for  1912. 

But  without  this  protection  this  growth  would  have  been  impossible,  if,  in  fact, 
the  industry  could  have  survived. 

This  is  a  helpful  industry  because  it  employs,  for  the  most  part,  skilled  labor.  Be- 
cause it  employs  women  also  at  better  wages  than  they  ordinarily  get. 

This  is  a  fair  industry  because  the  present  duty  of  60  per  cent  is  no  more  than  neces- 
sary. Because  there  are  steady  importations  notwithstanding  this  duty.  Because 


592 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 


under  this  protection,  it  has  increased  the  rate  of  wages  paid  from  20  per  cent  to  25  per 
cent,  thus  sharing  with  the  wage  earner.  Because,  at  the  same  time,  it  has  reduced 
its  selling  prices  to  the  trade  and  is  thus  sharing  with  the  consumer.  ^ 

If  this  protection  is  to  be  reduced,  or  removed,  and  this  industry  destroyed,  what  is 
to  become  of  these  many  employees  and  of  this  investment? 


OUR  PRICES  POUR  YEARS  AGO  AND  NOW. 


On  page  1053  of  the  tariff  hearings,  Schedule  B,  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress,  appears 
our  prices  of  certain  staples  of  our  manufacture  at  that  time,  1908.  We  have  materially 
reduced  our  prices  to  the  trade  for  those  particular  lines  as  is  shown  below : 


1908 

1912 

Keduc- 
tion. 

"Guernsey"  custard,  No.  2,  Exhibit  G6  

gross.. 
do  

$7.13J 
11.62 

$5.88 
10.08 

$1.25J 
1.54 

d  ozen  . 

7.  73J 

7.20 

.531 

Having  thus,  under  this  protection,  reduced  prices  as  well  as  increased  wages,  have 
we  not  given  a  square  deal? 

FOREIGN   AND   DOMESTIC   PRICES. 

We  have  within  the  past  few  days,  after  much  effort,  obtained  prices  in  the  open 
market  in  this  country,  from  importers,  without  their  knowledge,  and  file  herewith 
as  exhibits  what  we  bought,  and  also  our  own  corresponding  ware,  and  also  submit  the 
following  comparison  of  prices.  The  wares  shown  are  staples  in  this  line,  representa- 
tive throughout,  and  the  comparisons  of  prices  are  for  same  sizes  throughout.  All 
prices  are  by  the  dozen. 


Utensil. 

"Guernsey." 

"Luxemburg"  (Germany). 

No. 

Domestic 
price. 

Exh. 

No. 

Exh. 

Import 
price.1 

Stock 
price.* 

Round  casserole. 

67 
6S 
1 
3 
1 
2 

$3.86 
4.80 
1.05 
.95 
.37 
.49 

Gl 
G2 
G3 
G4 
Go 
G6 

4a/3 

4a/2 
87/2/8 
235/2/7 
10/8 
10/7 

LI 
L2 
L3 
L4 
L5 
L6 

$2.61 
3.78 
.84 
.79 
.34 
.47 

$3.05 
4.45 
.96 
.90 
«.40 
».58 

Do...     .                  

Oval  baker 

Pudding  dish  

Custard  cup  

Do 

1  "Import"  is  the  price  of  the  foreign  ware  f.  o.  b.  factory  abroad  with  duty  paid.    "Stock"  is  the  price 
of  the  same  ware  in  stock  at  the  importer's  in  New  York  Oity  ready  for  his  trade  with  duty  paid. 

!.    We  do  it  here,  not 
id  charge  the  loss,  to 


2  These  custards  are  the  only  article  in  which  we  offer  ware  below  the  foreign  price.     We"  do  it  here,  not 
because  we  get  enough  for  the  ware,  but  to  use  these  as  a  "leader"  in  the  trade,  and 


advertising,  as  it  were. 


THE    PRESENT   LEGISLATION. 


This  company  was  formerly  known  as  the  Chambridge  Art  Pottery  Co.,  its  corporate 
name  having  been  changed  to  The  Guernsey  Earthenware  Co.  It  appeared  under 
its  former  name  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress. 
Its  president  was  heard  by  that  committee,  its  brief  and  sundry  exhibits  were  filed, 
and  the  report  of  all  appears  on  pages  1049  et  seq.  of  tariff  hearings,  section  B. 

Prices  then  obtained  by  foreign  makers,  duty  paid,  appear  upon  page  1053. 

This  company  was  then  paying  about  double  the  wages  paid  in  this  line  in  Great 
Britain,  and  about  three  time's  the  wages  paid  in  Germany,  as  shown  by  Daily  Con- 
sular and  Trade  Reports  Xo.  3304,  October  14,  1908.  An  effort  has  been  made  since 
notice  of  these  hearings  to  obtain  a  later  showing  from  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  on  this  point  without  developing  any  increase  abroad  except  in  one  instance. 
This  is  an  increase  of  less  than  10  per  cent  to  some  of  the  wage  earners  at  Stoke  on 
Trent  in  Great  Britain,  reported  in  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports,  issue  of  Feb- 


SCHEDULE  B.  593 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

ruary  21,  1912,  page  770.  Manifestly  any  increase  abroad  must  be  negligible  in  com- 
parison. Meanwhile,  as  is  matter  of  common  knowledge,  wages  in  this  country  have 
materially  increased. 

This  company  has  meanwhile  increased  the  average  rate  of  wages  paid  in  ite  factory 
by  20  per  cent  to  25  per  cent. 

Therefore  its  argument  really  favors  an  increase  of  the  rate  of  duty,  though  all  it 
asks  is  a  retention  of  the  present  rate. 

This  company  is  sharing  with  its  employees  the  benefits  of  this  protection. 

CONCLUSION. 

With  a  growing  industry,  a  sharing  of  the  protection  with  the  public,  a  sharing  with 
the  wage  earner  also,  why  should  it  be  crippled  or  destroyed?    If  that  is  done,  where 
will  Congress  provide  support  for  these  employees? 
Respectfully  submitted. 

THE  GUERNSEY  EARTHENWARE  Co., 
By  CHARLES  L.  CASEY,  President. 

STATEMENT   OF  WILLIAM  BURGESS,  OF  TRENTON,  N.  J.,  REP- 
RESENTING THE  UNITED  STATES  POTTERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  BUEGESS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
within  the  few  minutes  allotted  to  me  I  can  not  do  more  than  men- 
tion a  few  facts  in  connection  with  the  pottery  industry,  the  one  in 
which  we  are  so  vitally  interested,  and  about  wnich  we  are  so  anxious 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  paragraph  do  you  have  reference  to  ? 

Mr.  BUEGESS.  Paragraphs  92,  93"  94,  and  95. 

In  considering  the  pottery  schedule,  you  are  confronted  with  the 
following  summary  of  facts: 

The  pottery  industry  is  one  which  requires  more  capital  invested 
in  proportion  to  the  amount  and  value  of  its  annual  production  than 
any  industry  in  this  country. 

It  is  one  which  employs  more  labor,  in  proportion  to  the  capital 
invested,  than  almost  any  other. 

On  account  of  the  character  of  the  materials  and  the  processes  of 
manufacture,  machinery  can  be  used  to  only  a  very  limited  extent — 
hand  labor  is  indispensable. 

Fully  90  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  pottery  ware  represents  labor, 
66 §  per  cent  actually  going  out  in  our  pay  envelopes. 

Wages  to  the  pottery  employees  are  among  the  highest  paid  in  any 
industry  in  this  country  and  far  exceed,  in  difference  of  wages  at 
home  and  abroad,  the  present  rate  of  duty  imposed  on  pottery  ware. 

It  is  an  industry  in  which  capital  and  labor  are  in  friendliest  rela- 
tions, having  learned  that  arbitration  is  better  than  war  and  friendly 
converse  than  strike.  All  disputed  questions  are  settled  biannually. 
There  has  been  no  strike  in  20  years. 

Since  the  establishment  of  the  industry  in  the  United  States  com- 
petition has  reduced  the  cost  almost  two-thirds  to  the  consumer,  at 
the  same  time  greatly  improving  the  quality  of  the  ware. 

Through  all  the  recent  history  of  high  and  advancing  prices  Ameri- 
can pottery  has  not  advanced  and  is  sold  to-day  cheaper  than  ever  in 
the  nistory  of  potting. 

We  are  to-day  supplying  less  than  two-fifths  of  the  total  consump- 
tion of  pottery  ware  in  the  United  States. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 38 


594  TAEIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

The  average  net  profits  of  the  business  are  less  than  6  per  cent  on 
the  actual  cash  invested. 

There  is  no  trust  or  combination  in  restraint  of  trade  in  any  form 
whatsoever;  competition  is  free  and  extremely  keen. 

The  business  is  absolutely  dependent  upon  some  measure  of  pro- 
tection. 

We  have  proof  to  substantiate  every  statement  we  make  and  will 
welcome  a  thorough  and  complete  investigation  of  our  claims  on 
your  part.  Our  factories  and  books  are  at  your  command  and  will 

be  gladly  opened  to  your  authorized  representative.  We  will  also  be 
glad  to  render  any  further  assistance  within  our  power. 

I  beg  the  opportunity  of  submitting  more  at  length  and  in  detail 
the  facts  concerning  our  industry  in  the  form  of  a  brief.  In  what  I 
have  to  say  to-day  and  in  the  brief  it  will  be  my  purpose  to  give  you 
a  conservative  statement  of  the  facts  and  conditions  surrounding  our 
industry  without  exaggeration  or  embellishment,  for  I  am  satisfied 
that  a  mere  statement  of  the  truth  is  the  most  potent  argument  I 
can  use  for  the  preservation  of  our  industry. 

The  purposes  publicly  expressed  by  your  chairman  and  the  state- 
ment of  President-elect  Wilson,  to  the  effect  that  honest  and  legiti- 
mate business  need  fear  nothing  from  the  new  administration,  gave 
us  great  encouragement  and  put  new  heart  into  pur  endeavors. 

We  class  ourselves  among  the  honest  and  legitimate  businesses  of 
the  country,  and  have  a  right  to  continue  to  live.  We  have  taken 
you  at  your  word.  The  business  has  developed  under  a  policy  of 
protection,  but  has  never  made  a  fortune  for  anyone.  Those  who 
nave  made  a  competency  have  been  extremely  fortunate.  Every 
penny  of  such  protection  has  gone  to  the  wage  earner,  who  now 
stands  forth  as  one  of  the  best  paid  artisans  in  the  United  States; 
at  the  same  time  we  have  reduced  the  value  of  pottery  ware  to  the 
consumer;  for  example,  a  given  assorted  crate  of  English  tableware 
was  sold  at  wholesale  in  this  country  in  1852,  when  there  was  no 
domestic  competition,  for  $95.30;  in"  1864,  on  account  of  the  high 
gold  premiums,  the  same  crate  was  sold  for  $210.75,  and  incidentally 
enabled  the  industry  to  get  a  start.  The  same  assortment  of  ware, 
of  vastly  superior  quality,  now  made  in  America,  is  sold  for  $37.59. 

While  this  has  been  accomplished,  it  has  not  in  any  way  seriously 
interfered  with  competition  from  abroad.  Statistics  show  that  impor- 
tations of  1SS4  were  $4,945,813,  and  in  1912  they  were  $10,062,203. 


SCHEDULE  B. 


595 


PARAGRAPHS   9£-94— POTTERY. 

China  and  earthen  ware  imports  from  1885  to  1912. 


England. 

Germany. 

Austria- 
Hungary. 

Japan. 

Total 
imports. 

1885.... 

$3,048,101 

$808,327 

$183,427 

$75,902 

$4,837,782 

1886                                                    

3,  192,  146 

781,612 

253,829 

97,224 

4,947,621 

1887...                           

3,530,444 

858,359 

804.830 

68,893 

5.716,927 

1888     .                           

3,941,670 

985.329 

471.  340 

181,257 

6.410  871 

1889  

3,845,620 

1,087,156 

519,587 

204,461 

6,  476,  299 

1890                                                    

3,954,004 

1,165,827 

543,385 

Z',i\  S40 

7.030  983 

1891  

4,325,413 

1,390,018 

624,000 

286,201 

8,381,388 

1892  

4,511,210 

1,681,961 

637,730 

337,839 

8,708,588 

1893...         .                     

4,765,774 

1,852,718 

808,194 

407,109 

9,509,431 

1894  

3,248,165 

1,518,607 

564,  112 

335,461 

6,879,437 

1895.                                     

4,651,275 

1,910,263 

702,335 

195,931 

8,956,106 

1896  

4,847,337 

2,692,110 

782,903 

387,591 

10,605,861 

1897  

4,017,233 

3,033,661 

658,816 

429,052 

9,967,297 

1898  

2,  709,  757 

2,089,762 

509,310 

313,712 

6,687,658 

1899  

2,933,234 

2,252,236 

501,097 

290,121 

7,603,959 

1900...                

3,235,388 

2,  787,  163 

548,013 

373  269 

8,646,223 

1901  

3,186,969 

3,392,825 

622,086 

459,518 

9,350,920 

1902         .                                                  

2,928,391 

3,651,215 

696,  172 

469,707 

9,  680,  156 

1903  

2,995,975 

3,961,501 

714,  131 

519,390 

10,512,052 

1904 

3,212,471 

4,  815,  848 

856,262 

711,226 

12,  005,  008 

1905    

2,804,811 

4,  770,  443 

909.929 

957,020 

11,659,723 

1906  

2,  758,  696 

5,131,974 

1,002,254 

,530,400 

12,877,528 

1907  

3,  147,  840 

5,153,943 

944,498 

,976,153 

13,  706,  790 

1908  

3,147,310 

5,287,267 

991,341 

,452,156 

13,427,969 

1909  

2,406,718 

3,  527,  920 

855,842 

,083,735 

10,  096,  954 

1910  

2,777,571 

4,018,561 

827,356 

,257,197 

11,183.974 

1911              

2,  608,  333 

4,  662,  604 

706,345 

,245,613 

11,431.652 

1912  

2,  179,  489 

4,  102,  13* 

672,584 

1,231,426 

10,062,203 

By  comparison  of  the  importations  of  1885  and  of  1912  we  find  as  follows: 
Importations  from  England  have  decreased  20  per  cent. 
Importations  from  Germany  have  increased  410  per  cent. 
Importations  from  Austria  have  increased  266  per  cent. 
Importations  from  Japan  have  increased  1,523  per  cent. 

I  have  here  some  little  charts,  which  I  passed  to  the  gentlemen 
of  the  committee,  prepared  by  us,  which  bring  this  scale  down  to 
date,  showing  in  the  first  place,  on  chart  I,1  the  importations  from 
the  various  countries,  showing  how  England  practically  had  the 
market  of  this  country  in  1884.  Germany,  with  very  little  importa- 
tion, about  six  million.  To-day  Germany  has  far  outstripped  Eng- 
land. England  is  less  than  she  was  25  years  ago.  Japan  has  become 
a  very  serious  factor,  and  Austria  has  also  increased  very  largely. 

On  the  other  chart,  No.  2,1  you  will  see  the  relative  growth  of  the 
industry  as  compared  with  the  importations,  the  upper  line  indicating 
the  American  value  of  the  imported  ware,  giving  it  only  100  per  cent 
advance  over  the  foreign  value,  which  is  extremely  low  and  conserva- 
tive. So  that  the  importation  value  in  1890  was  about  $14,000,000, 
say;  that  is,  the  American  selling  value  of  the  imported  stuff.  To-day 
that  is  up  in  the  neighborhood  of  $28,000,000.  The  American  im- 
portations in  1890  were  about  $8,800,000;  to-day  they  run  up  above 
the  chart  figures,  near  to  the  fifteen  million  mark. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  speaking  of  china  there,  are  you  not — 
earthenware  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Earthenware  and  china  combined. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  not  them  separated  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  there  is  no  way  of  separating  them. 


1  Omitted. 


596  TABTFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Treasury  figures  have  them  separated.  They 
are  separated  under  the  schedules — total  importations  of  earthen- 
ware and  total  importations  of  chinaware. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Running  all  the  way  back? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  them  for  the  last  year. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Oh,  for  the  last  year.  But  I  do  not  think  you  have 
them  running  back  25  years.  Recently  they  have  been  separating 
them  more  carefully.  Therefore  we  have  no  data  for  accurate  com- 
parison. 

In  chart  No.  2  I  would  like  to  call  special  attention  to  the  lower 
left-hand  corner  to  show  the  very  disastrous  effect  that  befell  the 
American  industry  at  the  time  of  the  last  reduction.  Our  product 
in  1892  was  about  $8,800,000.  In  1893  it  fell  to  $3,500,000.  At  the 
same  time  the  imports  went  up  over  a  million.  They  immediately 
dropped  after  the  depression  in  trade,  but  very  promptly  rose  to  the 
ten-million  mark,  whereas  the  American  industry  simply  rose  very 
gradually,  amounting  to  a  million  dollars  or  thereabouts  in  the  four 
years. 

Mr.  PETERS.  What  were  the  reduced  rates  at  that  time? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  From  55  and  60  to  30  and  35. 

From  that  time,  from  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  bill,  there  has 
been  a  steady  advance  in  importations  and  in  domestic  production. 

Mr.  Dixox.  Did  the  Payne  bill  reduce  the  rates  from  the  Dingley 
bill — the  rates  on  chinaware  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  The  Payne  bill  left  the  china  and  earthenware  as  a 
whole  just  where  it  was,  changing  the  wording  of  the  schedule  slightly, 
but  making  no  difference  in  the  rate. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  it  a  fact,  that  outside  of  the  chinaware,  we  export 
a  great  deal  more  of  earthenware  and  stoneware  than  we  import, 
and  that  we  export  this  in  competition  with  all  the  world  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Wo  do  not  export  any  earthenware,  sir — the  class 
that  I  represent. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Are  you  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  have  not  seen  the  Treasury  statistics,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes;  I  have  seen  the  Treasury  statistics. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  overlook  the  fact  that  we  exported  in  1912,  in 
earthenware  and  stoneware,  §1,824,000. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Not  one  piece  of  it  is  included  in  the  ware  I  rep- 
resent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  said  outside  of  chinaware. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  It  is  china  and  earthenware. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  And  the  imports  were  a  good  deal  less  than  the 
exports,  outside  of  chinaware. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  figures,  Mr.  Burgess,  do  not  correspond  with 
the  figures  the  Treasury  Department  has  furnished  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Somebody  has  furnished  you  with  the  wrong  figures. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  I  am  not  segregating  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  conceded,  I  think,  that  so  far  as  china- 
ware^  concerned,  there  is  a  very  good  competition  at  a  free  com- 
petitive rate  now.  at  least,  it  appears  to  be  so  from  the  figures 
furnished  by  the  Treasury  Department. 


SCHEDULE   B.  597 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

When  it  comes  to  stoneware,  if  their  figures  are  correct,  you  have 
less  than  1  per  cent  importation.  The  committee  is  considering 
these  different  paragraphs,  and  we  are  not  going  to  consider  them 
grouped  together. 

I  think  it  will  be  conceded  there  is  a  very  reasonable  competition 
in  chinaware,  but  when  you  come  to  earthenware  it  looks  like  there 
was  a  tariff  block  on  the  wall,  and  if  you  care  to,  we  will  be  very  glad 
to  hear  from  you  on  the  earthenware  proposition. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  do  you  mean  by  earthenware? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  classification  of  the  lower  grades. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  A  million  dollars  was  imported  last  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  is  chinaware. 

Mr.  PAYNE  (reading) .  "  Plain  white,  plain  brown,  not  painted" 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  is  the  common  yellow  and  brown  clay,  and  all 
stone  and  earthenware,  except  the  chinaware,  this  yellow  stuff  that 
you  see  there  [indicating]. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  are  the  general  line  of  stoneware.  They  come 
in  with  porcelain,  parian,  plain  white,  and  common  yellow,  a  total  of 
$9,615,000  of  importation. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Head  all  the  paragraph. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Why  is  not  that  the  larger  item  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Because  that  is  chinaware. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Common  yellow,  brown,  or  gray  is  chinaware. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes,  that  may  be  considered  chinaware,  but  not  china. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  plain  white  and  plain  brown  is  earthenware,  too  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  think  you  will  find  that  million  is  plain  white  and 
plain  brown. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Witness,  to  make  it  clear  to  you,  so  that  you 
may  take  the  matter  up  if  you  care  to,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  paragraph  92,  designated  in  the  bill  as  common 
yellow,  brown,  and  gray  earthenware,  and  so  forth,  the  Treasury 
Department's  figures  that  we  have,  show  for  the  year  1912  total 
importations  only  to  the  value  of  $144,000.  The  estimated  con- 
sumption, as  given  us  by  the  Census  Bureau,  of  this  article,  under  this 
paragraph,  is  over  $14,000,000,  and  the  exports  amount  to  $802,000. 

You  can  see  that  there  is  hardly  1  per  cent  of  importation  under 
that  paragraph. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  comes  in  under  25  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  But  I  am  trying  to  make  him  differentiate 
between  these  two  paragraphs.  Under  paragraphs  93  and  94,  which 
you  class  as  chinaware. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Earthenware,  fine  stoneware,  and  chinaware. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  merely  calling  your  attention  to  these  figures. 
There  the  value  of  the  imports  amounts  to  $10,000,000  out  of  a  total 
consumption  of  $34,000,000 

In  other  words,  there  is  nearly  one-third  of  the  articles  that  were 
consumed  in  the  United  States,  under  paragraphs  93  and  94,  that  are 
imported,  and  I  can  agree  with  you  m  your  argument.  But  when 
you  come  down  to  paragraph  92  there  seems  to  be  a  block  in  the 
tariff  wall.  We  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  you  if  you  have  anything 
to  say  as  to  that. 


598  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Mr.  Burgess,  I  think  perhaps  you  can  enlighten  the 
chairman  as  to  what  that  $10,000,000  includes. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  whole  difficulty  lies  in  a  misun- 
derstanding of  what  we  are  talking  about. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  talking  about  paragraph  92. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Paragraph  92  is  the  paragraph  that  enters  very 
little  into  the  consideration  of  what  I  am  saying  just  now,  because 
that  refers  to  a  grade  of  ware  that  is  of  the  commonest  kind,  that  is  of 
a  low  order,  that  has  a  low  rate  of  duty  set  against  it.  We  are  pro- 
ducing in  this  country  without  any  question  a  very  large  proportion  of 
that  group  of  commodities.  But  to  say  that  everything  under  para- 
graphs 93  and  94  is  chinaware  is  a  misunderstanding  of  the  trade's 
use  and  meaning  of  that  term. 

Here  we  have  two  articles.  This  [indicating]  is  earthenware.  The 
paragraph  reads,  as  I  remember  it,  earthen,  stone,  porcelain, 
parian — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think,  Mr.  Burgess,  that  we  can  concede  you 
have  a  competitive  tariff  in  paragraphs  93  and  94.  It  looks  that  way 
from  the  figures  that  are  before  us. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  The  wording  of  93  and  94  is— 

China,  porcelain,  parian,  bisque,  earthen,  stone,  and  crocker    ware. 

There  [indicating]  is  a  high  grade  of  earthenware.  There  [indi- 
cating] is  a  high  grade  of  chinaware.  Those  are  the  subjects  I  am 
speaking  about  this  morning,  and  those  are  the  subjects  which  we  are 
at  present  interested  in. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  testimony,  then,  does  not  relate  to  para- 
graph 92. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  relating  to  paragraph  92  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No.  The  industry  is  entirely  free  from  anything  in 
the  form  of  combination  or  trust  in  the  making  of  selling  prices  or  in 
restraint  of  trade.  Competition  is  absolutely  free  and  is  extremely 
keen. 

As  a  revenue  producer,  Schedule  B  stands  tenth  in  importance  of 
all  the  schedules  in  the  tariff  law. 

The  industry  is  a  very  precarious  one.  The  possibilities  of  loss  are 
unusually  great,  and  the  proportion  of  profits  have  never  been  com- 
mensurate with  the  great  risk  in  manufacture.  Out  of  30  factories 
that  were  in  operation  in  the  city  of  Trenton  when  I  began  business 
some  34  years  ago  but  4  of  those  factories  have  weathered  the  storm. 

The  pottery  industry  is  and  has  been  the  special  object  of  govern- 
mental consideration  in  foreign  countries.  The  Royal  Worcester  of 
England,  the  Sevres  of  France,  the  Royal  Copenhagen  of  Denmark, 
the  Royal  Meisen  of  Dresden,  Germany,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Em- 
peror's own  pottery  plant  at  Berlin,  the  Royal  Japanese  Factory,  are 
examples  of  such  fostering  care.  These  factories  are  not  supposed 
to  produce  profit,  but  are  established  for  the  benefit  of  the  industry. 
Experiments  are  made,  materials  tested,  and  methods  of  operation 
tried  out  for  the  benefit  of  the  national  industry.  The  American 
potter  has  none  of  these  advantages,  but  must  work  out  his  own 
salvation  with  fear  and  trembling. 


SCHEDULE  B.  599 

PARAGRAPHS  92 -94— POTTERY. 

Few,  if  any,  industries  have  so  large  a  percentage  of  labor  cost  in 
the  total  cost  of  their  production.  The  raw  materials  in  the  ground, 
viz,  clay,  quartz,  and  feldspar  are  worth  from  25  cents  to  50  cents  per 
ton.  Labor  enhances  these  raw  materials  to  an  average  value  of  $10 
per  ton  by  the  tune  they  are  prepared  and  delivered  at  the  pottery. 
The  actual  wages  paid  the  portery  workmen  in  one  form  or  another 
enters  into  the  finished  cost  approximately  to  the  extent  of  90  per 
cent. 

COST   OF   PRODUCTION. 

Our  whole  case  rests  upon  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production 
at  home  and  abroad.  The  following  indicates  the  difference  in  the 
several  elements  entering  into  the  cost  of  ordinary  pottery  table  and 
toilet  ware  in  England  and  America: 

I.  Capital  investment  for  plant  and  working  capacity,  37  per  cent 
greater  in  the  United  States  than  in  England. 

II.  (1)  Materials    entering   into    composition    of   ware,    such    as 
clay,  quartz,  feldspar,  etc.,  31  per  cent  greater  in  the  United  States 
than  in  England. 

(2)  Materials  not  part  of  composition,  but  used  in  the  process 
of  manufacture,  35  per  cent  greater  in  the  Ignited  States  than  in 
England. 

III.  Labor.  (1)  Producing  help,  average  weekly  earnings  of  skilled 
journeymen  potters,  or  those  who  form  the  ware,  and  those  who  place 
the  ware  in  the  kilns,  173  per  cent  greater  in  the  United  States  than 
in  England. 

(2)  Nonproducing  help — all  other  help  employed  in  or  about  the 
factory,  skilled  and  unskilled,  145  per  cent  greater  in  the  United 
States  than  in  England. 

TOTAL   DIFFERENCE    IN    COST    OF    PRODUCING    A    GIVEN    QUANTITY    OP 

WARE. 

.  Take  a  given  quantity  of  ware  produced  in  one  year,  and  consider- 
ing the  proportion  in  which  each  element  enters  into  the  total,  you 
have — 

1.  The  total  labor  cost  to  be  111  per  cent  greater  in  the  United 
States  than  in  England. 

2.  The  total  material  cost  t§  be  43  per  cent  greater  in  the  United 
States  than  in  England. 

3.  The  grand  total  cost,  including  labor,  materials,  interest  on 
investment,  insurance,  taxes,  etc.,  to  be  78  per  cent  greater  in  the 
United  States  than  in  England. 

DIFFERENCE    IN    CONDITIONS. 

Wages  in  both  countries  are  based  on  piecework  prices,  and  what- 
ever benefit  may  accrue  from  better  conditions  are  of  no  advantage 
to  the  manufacturer,  so  far  as  the  cost  of  production  is  concerned. 
This  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  although  the  total  difference  in  the 
rate  of  wages  is  111  per  cent,  the  weekly  earnings  differ  to  the  extent 
of  173  per  cent.  These  figures  are  all  based  on  journeymen's  wages. 


600  TABIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-04— POTTERY. 

Other  advantages  are  enjoyed  by  English  manufacturers: 

1.  Female  labor. — Female  labor  is  employed  in  England  in  the  ratio 
of  80  females  to  100  males,  and  in  the  United  States  19  females  to 
100  males.     Women  do  the  work  in  England  that  only  men  do  in  the 
United  States.     Allow  me  to  quote  from  the  English  board  of  trade 
report — 

It  appears  that  women  and  girls  are  very  largely  employed  in  the  pottery  industry. 
In  some  branches  of  the  trade  they  are  being  employed  to  an  increased  extent  upon 
work  which  a  few  years  ago  was  performed  almost  exclusively  by  men.  They  are 
now  active  in  competition  with  male  labor,  and  as  they  are  able  to  do  similar  work 
for  lower  wages  they  are  gradually  driving  men  from  certain  sections  of  the  trade. 
The  reason  given  for  this  is  the  usual  one — women  do  the  work  as  satisfactorily  as  men, 
and  the  cutting  of  prices  in  trade  competition  drives  the  employer  to  low-paid  labor. 

2.  Method  of  paying  wages. — In  England  the  ware  is  paid  for  "good 
from  kiln,"  or  after  it  has  passed  through  the  first  firing,  the  work- 
man having  to  stand  the  loss;  in  America  the  ware  is  paid  for  "good 
from  hand,"  or  as  it  leaves  the  potter's  hands,  the  manufacturer 
standing  the  loss  in  the  process  of  firing. 

3.  The  English  apprentice  system  secures  to  the  manufacturer  more 
skilled  workmen  and  gives  them  the  benefit  of  long  years  of  service 
at  very  low  wages.     In  the  United  States  the  benefits  derived  from 
our  so-called  apprentices  are  insignificant. 

CONTINENTAL   EARTHENWARE. 

On  the  Continent  the  difference  in  labor  cost  is  still  greater.  The 
average  wages  being  220  per  cent  greater  in  the  United  States  than 
on  the  Continent,  and  the  total  cost  of  production  95  per  cent  greater 
in  the  United  States  than  on  the  Continent. 

CHINA    AND    PORCELAIN. 

When  we  consider  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  china  and  porcelain, 
we  find  it  to  be  still  greater;  so  much  so  that  the  difference  is  almost 
insurmountable.  In  Germany  the  labor  cost  is  218  per  cent  greater; 
the  material  cost  33  per  cent,  and  the  total  cost  of  production  125 
per  cent.  In  Austria  the  labor  cost  246  per  cent,  material  cost  47 
per  cent,  and  total  cost  140  per  cent.  In  France  the  labor  cost  is 
175  per  cent,  material  cost  31  per  cent,  and  the  grand  total  difference 
is  110  per  cent. 

The  difference  in  the  continental  conditions  are  still  greater  than 
those  between  England  and  the  United  States.  In  Germany  and 
Austria  similar  labor  is  employed  in  many  factories  in  the  ratio  of  300 
females  to  100  males,  and  where  the  female  does  the  work  of  the  male, 
she  receives  but  half  the  compensation;  whereas,  in  the  United  States 
if  a  woman  does  the  work  of  a  man,  she  receives  the  same  rate  of 
compensation. 

JAPANESE    WARE. 

One  of  the  most  alarming  conditions  that  confronts  us  is  the 
increased  importations  from  Japan,  and  the  greatly  Americanized 
character  and  quality  of  the  ware;  that  is,  the  ware  made  specially 
for  toe  American  market.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  your  atten- 


SCHEDULE   B.  601 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

tion  to  the  fact  of  the  enormous  difference  of  labor  cost  of  any  article 
in  which  labor  constitutes  an  important  factor. 

The  following  figures  ara  a  summary  of  comparisons  of  average  in 
rate  of  wages  reduced  to  an  hourly  basis.  These  figures  are  the 
averages  of  all  classes  of  labor,  including  men,  women,  boys,  and  girls: 

Average  rate  of  wages  per  hour: 

United  States $0. 2483 

England 11 

Germany .' 0913 

Austria 086 

France 0825 

Belgium 0693 

Holland 065 

Japan 025 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  touch  on  several  other  questions  which 
are  of  decided  importance,  and  about  which  you  should  have  full  in- 
formation, such  as  the  assessment  of  duty  on  packages  and  packing 
charges;  the  myth  of  so-called  geographical  protection,  etc. 

I  desire  also  to  submit  a  separate  brief  on  the  subject  of  the  adminis- 
trative features  of  the  law,  with  which  I  have  had  some  years  of 
experience. 

Before  closing,  however,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  following 
samples,  which  I  herewith  present.  First,  to  show  you  that  it  is 
possible  for  the  American  manufacturer  to  make  the  very  best  of 
pottery  ware,  I  show  you  a  sample  or  two  made  in  Trenton,  N.  J., 
by  the  Lenox  (Inc.). 

I  wish  also  to  show  you  how  advantage  is  taken  of  the  American 
dealers  and  consumers  along  lines  with  which  we  have  been  unable 
to  compete  commercially. 

I  show  you  a  plate  of  Theodore  Haviland's  make,  which  is  invoiced 
at  about  SI  1 ,  on  which  value  duty  is  paid.  The  American  representa- 
tive of  Haviland  sells  this  set  to  the  trade  at  $28.50.  The  price  the 
consumer  has  to  pay  for  this  100-piece  set  at  such  stores  as  McCreary 
&  Co.,  of  New  York,  is  $50,  the  duty  actually  paid  being  about  12 
per  cent  of  the  consumer's  price. 

I  show  you  a  plate  of  a  pattern  well  known  as  the  Blue  Willow 
Ware,  with  which  the  American  potter  competes  directly.  The 
manufacturer's  price  to  the  department  store  is  $7.02;  the  cost  of  the 
imported  article  laid  down  in  New  York  is  approximately  $6.90. 
The  consumer,  however,  has  to  pay  lass  for  the  imported  article  than 
for  the  domestic.  He  can  buy  the  English  set  at  $12,  whereas  the 
American  set  is  sold  for  $12.75. 

We  have  been  accused  by  the  importers  of  selling  our  product  too 
cheaply.  We  can  assure  you,  in  a  word,  that  we  have  not  sold  our 
goods  at  one  cent  less  price  than  foreign  goods  and  domestic  com- 
petition compelled  us  to  sell. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  through  past  20  years  of  increasing 
higher  prices  the  American  potters'  product  has  not  advanced. 
This  might  be  considered  poor  business  policy,  but  open  and  free 
competition  has  not  otherwise  permitted. 

The  cheapest  grades  of  foreign  goods  can  be  sold  here  under  the 
present  rate  of  duty*  at  less  than  we  can  produce  them.  This  is 
true,  also,  of  the  highest  grades.  We  are,  therefore,  confined  to 


602  TAKIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^POTTERY. 

the  middle  grade,  upon  which  competition  is  very  keen  and  on 
which  there  is  an  average  profit  of  less  than  6  per  cent. 

I  have  the  sworn  statements  of  20  of  our  large  manufacturers 
showing  a  net  profit  of  $304,554  during  the  year  on  an  actual  cash 
investment  of  $5,698,613,  or  5£  per  cent. 

I  also  have  the  published  statements  of  a  few  foreign  concerns: 
Porcelain  factory  at  Kahla,  actual  dividends  declared,  25  per  cent; 
Baucher  Bros.,  20  per  cent;  Philip  Kosenthal,  of  Germany,  18  per 
cent;  and  Johnson  pros.,  of  England,  capitalized  at  £250,000  ster- 
ling, declared  a  dividend  of  £66,000,  or  26f  per  cent.  The  English 
manufacturers  have  recently  advanced  their  price. 

Gentlemen,  in  facing  the  pottery  schedule,  you  are  confronted 
with  these  facts:  An  industry  on  which  about  50,000  persons  are 
directly  dependent,  paying  high  wages  to  its  employees  far  in  excess 
of  the  present  rate  of  duty,  earning  less  than  legal  rate  of  interest 
on  the  investment,  supplying  less  than  two-fifths  of  the  pottery  con- 
sumed in  this  country,  which,  by  its  establishment  in  tins  country, 
reduced  the  cost  to  the  consumer  almost  two-thirds,  at  the  same 
time  improving  the  quality  of  the  goods,  is  absolutely  unrestricted 
in  competition,  which  requires  large  investment  in  plant  in  com- 
parison to  the  value  of  the  output,  which  has  a  greater  number  of 
persons  employed  when  compared  with  the  capital  invested  than 
any  industry  of  which  I  know  of,  and  is  an  industry  absolutely 
dependent  upon  some  measure  of  protection. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Have  you  included  in  that  statement  the  capital  of 
your  company  and  the  dividends  of  your  company  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  The  20  factories  I  speak  of  have  an  actual  cash  capi- 
tal investment  of  $5,698,613. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  That  is,  your  company? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  That  is  for  the  20  companies,  from  whom  I  have  a 
sworn  statement. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  The  20  companies  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Are  you  one  of  the  stockholders  or  directors  of  any 
of  these  companies,  or  are  you  just  a  representative  of  those  com- 
panies ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  I  am  a  stockholder  in  one  of  the  companies. 

Mr.  KITCIIIX.  Do  you  know  how  much  actual  capital  is  paid  in  of 
that  85,698,000? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  This  is  the  actual  cash  capital  in  operation — not  cap- 
ital stock  or  any  inflated  value,  but  the  actual  money  that  was 
invested  and  in  operation  in  that  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  much  dividend  did  you  say  you  paid  on  that 
last  year  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  It  was  about  5-J  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  much  have  you  carried  to  the  surplus? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Not  any  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Nothing  to  a  sinking  fund? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Nothing  that  I  know  of.  These  are  not  the  divi- 
dends. These  were  the  profits  that  were  made,  the  net  profits. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  After  paying  salaries  ? 


SCHEDULE  B.  603 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  After  paying  salaries.  These  matters  are  all 
subject — 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Your  business  needs  a  good  deal  more  of  a  tariff 
than  55  per  cent  and  60  per  cent,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  If  we  developed  active  competition  with  this  class 
of  chinaware. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  am  talking  about  the  other  class,  for  the  moment. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  we  do  not  claim  that  we  need  more.  We  are 
on  a  basis  now  that  enables  us  to  manufacture  this  general  class  of 
goods.  It  does  not  exclude  the  foreign  product  of  the  same  general 
class. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  are  satisfied,  then,  without  taking  into  con- 
sideration the  depreciation  of  your  plant,  or  any  surplus,  with  this  6 
per  cent  profit  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  we  are  not  satisfied.     We  would  like  more. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  understood  you  to  say  awhile  ago  that  the  cost  of 
your  product  was  about  78  per  cent  more  than  that  of  the  foreign 
product  with  which  you  come  hi  competition  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  It  is ;  yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  does  the  55  per  cent  tariff  counteract  that  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  For  several  reasons.  The  trade  does  not  carry  the 
amount  of  stock  of  American  goods  they  do  of  foreign  goods.  The 
American  manufacturer  acts  as  a  warehouseman  for  the  American 
dealer  to  a  large  extent.  A  New  York  merchant,  for  example,  will 
telegraph  to  Trenton  for  certain  goods;  the  same  will  be  delivered 
next  day  to  him  in  New  York.  I  think  you  will  find  this  true  if  you 
step  into  any  department  store  and  look  over  their  stock.  You  will 
see  very  few  American  goods  either  on  sample  or  in  stock.  Again, 
the  small  American  dealer  throughout  the  country  who  has  to  buy 
through  an  importer  has  to  pay  the  importer's  profit,  whereas  buying 
direct  from  the  American  manufacturer,  he  can  buy  at  practically 
the  same  price  that  the  large  metropolitan  dealer  buys  at.  Then, 
again,  the  American  jobber  can  have  his  customers'  orders  packed 
and  shipped  direct  from  the  factory  to  his  customer  without  any 
expense  to  him.  The  American  manufacturer  has  some  advantages 
of  this  character  which  enables  him  to  compete  for  certain  class  of 
business. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  face  value  of  your  shares  of  stock  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  That  depends  on  what  concern  you  are  speaking  of. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Well,  take  the  largest  concern  in  that  group  of  20. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  I  am  not  prepared  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  the  stock  worth  now,  how  much  above 
the  face  value — the  stock  in  the  company  of  which  you  are  a  stock- 
holder ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  The  one  I  am  engaged  in  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes;  how  much  is  that  worth  more  than  par? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  If  the  stock  could  be  sold  to-day  hi  the  company 
that  I  am  engaged  in  for  100  cents  on  the  dollar  we  would  be  glad  to 
get  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  know  what  the  stock  in  the  largest  company 
which  you  represent  here  is  worth  ? 


604  TAKIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95^-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  The  largest  company  that  is  enumerated  in  the  list 
referred  to,  I  believe  would  be  willing  to  sell  out  at  the  same  rate. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Well,  the  Payne  Act  has  not  helped  you  people  very 
much,  then,  has  it  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes;  we  have  been  helped.  We  have  increased  our 
output  since  the  Payne  Act  considerably. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  have  not  increased  your  profits,  though,  have 
you? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  the  profits  have  not  been  increased  materially, 
but  that  has  not  been  so  much  from  the  rate  that  was  fixed  as  from 
the  changed  features  in  the  administrative  law  that  our  industry  got 
the  benefit  of.  The  duties  have  been  collected  a  little  more  thor- 
oughly and  a  little  more  carefully  under  the  Payne  Act  than  they 
were  before. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  duty,  so  far  as  this  class  of  china  that  you 
are  talking  about  is  concerned,  under  the  Payne  Act  and  under  the 
Dingley  Act  remained  unchanged;  there  was  no  change  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  There  was  no  change. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  kind  of  stuff  was  this  $1,492,000  worth  of 
exports  of  earthenware  and  stoneware? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  I  am  not  very  familiar  with  that  class  of  stuff,  but 
as  far  as  I  know — 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Well,  do  you  know  what  it  was  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes;  I  know  some  of  it.  Some  of  it  was  sewer  pipe, 
and  there  were  some  stone  crocks  and  jugs,  and  goods  of  that  class. 
As  to  the  tableware,  I  do  not  know  of  any,  except  possibly  here  and 
there  an  individual  dinner  set  going  over  to  a  friend. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Where  did  those  products  go  to,  Mr.  Burgess  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  They  went  to  Canada,  mostly.  There  have  been 
some  electrical  goods  going  into  South  America,  and  some  into  Canada. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  And  some  to  the  islands,  I  suppose,  the  neighbor- 
ing islands  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes;  some. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  All  near  at  hand  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes;  nearby. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Is  there  any  difference  between  the  freight  rate 
on  the  English  product  and  on  the  American  product  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Very  decidedly.  I  have  not  the  most  recent  figures. 
There  has  been  some  advance,  but,  according  to  the  figures  I  have  in 
mind,  the  rate  from  Liverpool,  England,  to  Philadelphia  was  8  cents 
a  hundred;  the  rate  from  Trenton,  30  miles,  to  Philadelphia  was  9 
cents  a  hundred.  The  rate  from  Liverpool,  England,  to  Baltimore 
was  8  cents  a  hundred;  from  Trenton  to  Baltimore,  140  miles,  it  was 
18  cents  a  hundred;  the  rate  from  Liverpool  to  St.  Louis  formerly 
was  27  cents  a  hundred;  from  Trenton,  it  was  47  cents  a  hundred. 
Those  things  have  changed,  but  may  have  some  interest  in  connec- 
tion with  the  question  of  the  gentleman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  this :  The  amount  of  importations 
under  this  schedule  seems  to  be  about  one-third  of  your  American 
production.  Do  you  think  your  industry  can  thrive  and  succeed 
with  that  amount  of  importations  against  you  ? 


SCHEDULE    B.  605 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  That  statement,  as  you  make  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
not  a  fair  comparison,  because  you  include  in  that  question  American 
value,  a  great  many  articles  tnat  we  do  not  include  in  our  industry. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  I  included  the  products  in  the  two 
paragraphs,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you  state  to  me  what,  in  the 
actually  competitive  line,  is  the  per  cent  of  competition  that  you 
meet? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  In  round  figures,  I  should  say  about  $15,000,000 
of  American  product  as  against  almost  $11,000,000  of  imported 
product;  that  is,  foreign  value  of  imported  product.  Now,  the  only 
fair  way  to  compare  that  competition  is  by  taking  the  landed  price 
here,  which  would  possibly  be  $22,000,000  as  against  our  fourteen  or 
fifteen  million  dollars — that  is,  the  American  wholesale  dealer  is 
paying  over  $22,000,000  for  the  foreign  ware  he  uses,  as  against,  say, 
$15,000,000  of  the  domestic  goods. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  you  have  an  excess  on  the  total  consumption 
of  competitive  product  of  something  between  55  and  60  per  cent  of 
product  imported  as  against  40  or  50  per  cent  of  domestic  production ; 
is  that  correct? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think,  under  those  circumstances,  your 
industry  can  face  the  fight  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Well,  yes.  We  do  not  feel  that  it  is  an  opportune 
time  to  ask  for  any  additional  protection  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  reason  I  asked  you  that  question  is  that  a 
great  many  gentlemen  have  come  here  representing  industries  whose 
imports  amount  to  less  than  1  per  cent  of  the  American  consumption, 
and  they  have  contended  that  they  can  not  hold  their  own  if  the  rate 
is  cut,  and  I  was  very  glad  to  see  a  gentleman  appear  before  this  com- 
mittee, as  to  whose  industry  there  was  real  competition,  and  say  that 
he  was  satisfied  and  willing  to  face  the  market  and  fight.  I  was  not 
reflecting  on  your  business,  but  I  just  had  in  mind  the  fact  that  you 
had  over  50  per  cent  competition,  but  thought  you  could  hold  your 
own,  while  men  representing  industries  with  only  2  or  3  per  cent 
competition  say  that  if  there  was  a  cut  they  would  be  ruined. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  what  I  want  to  ask  you  to  do,  if  you  will  be 
good  enough  to  do  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee,  is  to  differ- 
entiate between  the  class  of  goods  contained  in  paragraphs  93  and  94 
and  92.  Will  you  explain  to  me  the  difference  between  the  classes  of 
goods  contained  in  those  paragraphs  ?  In  other  words,  what  class  of 
goods  is  there  in  paragraph  92,  and  then  I  wish  you  would  describe 
the  class  of  goods  in  the  other  paragraphs. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  In  the  brief,  do  you  mean? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  I  would  like  you  to  do  so  now. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  In  paragraph  92  we  have  common  yellow  ware — 
that  is,  the  ordinary  cheap  cooking  ware  of  a  very  low  grade. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Is  that  a  sample  of  it  [indicating  ware  in  Mr. 
Burgess's  hand]  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  that  is  high  grade. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  Is  that  the  higher  grade? 


606  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   92-94— POTTEBY. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  That  is  the  higher  grade.  This  common  yellow 
ware  is  made  of  crude  yellow  clay,  without  any  admixture.  It  is 
thrown  together  in  a  rough  way  by  a  cheaper  class  of  labor.  Common 
brown  ware  is  the  same.  We  do  not  have  any  common  gray  ware 
that  I  know  of.  Plain  and  embossed,  of  course,  refer  to  the  shape  of 
the  goods.  Salt-glazed  common  stoneware  is  what  is  known  as  the 
common  vinegar  jug  or  crock.  That  is  made  of  a  clay  that  is  vitri- 
fiable.  It  becomes  like  that  stone  [indicating],  without  any  other 
admixture.  In  the  firing  the  salt  is  introduced,  and  the  fumes  of  the 
salt  attach  to  the  silica  of  the  body  and  form  a  glaze,  which  is  another 
cheap  product.  Then,  earthenware,  stoneware,  and  stoneware  cruci- 
bles are  similar,  and  so  on.  That  is  of  a  cheap,  common  grade  of 
stuff. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  such  tableware  as  is  used  by  the  plain  peo- 
ple of  the  country  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  tableware  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  it  is  nothing  at  all.  The  common  yellow  ware 
is  made  into  cooking  vessels  of  various  kinds,  pie  plates,  and  common 
yellow  bowls,  and  articles  of  that  kind,  that  are  used  in  every  house- 
hold, in  the  kitchen,  for  culinary  purposes  largely,  and  they  could 
use  one  of  those  pie  plates  to  eat  from,  if  they  wanted  to  do  so, 
as  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  them,  but  it  does  not  come  hi  as  a  table 
article  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  very  low-grade  class  of  tableware; 
is  there  much  competition  in  regard  to  that  to-day  ? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  From  abroad  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  There  is  not  so  much  competition  on  the  cheapest 
grade  of  stuiF,  which  is  known  as  CC  ware.  That  is  a  ware  of  a 
cheaper  grade  than  this  [indicating].  "CC"  stands  for  cream  color. 
That  is  an  old  name.  They  now  put  stain  in  it,  and  it  is  almost  as 
white  as  the  best  ware,  but  it  is  of  a  cheap  quality  of  clay.  That  line 
is  included  in  paragraphs  03  and  94  as  earthenware,  but  there  is  no 
way  of  differentiating  between  that  and  this  article  [indicating]  and 
the  others  from  that  up.  There  is  no  possible  way,  because  one  sim- 
ply merges  into  the  other. 

Mr.  LONG  WORTH.  Have  you  anything  here  that  would  come  under 
paragraph  92  '. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Dixox.  Are  you  the  same  gentleman  who  appeared  here  four 
or  five  years  ago.  when  the  Payne  bill  was  under  consideration? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dixox.  I  notice  that  you  gave  the  price  of  labor  abroad  at  that 
time  at  about  the  same  figure  as  you  give  it  now. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes. 

Mr.  Dixox.  Have  you  made  an  investigation  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes" 

Mr.  Dixox.  Since  the  hearings   before? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Yes.  I  had  my  figures  corroborated  by  the  man- 
ager of  one  of  the  English  manufacturers. 


SCHEDULE   B.  607 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94r-POTTERY. 

Mr.  DIXON.  You  will  observe  that  many  of  the  figures  you  give 
to-day  are  the  same  as  they  were  before. 

Mr.  BURGESS.  I  have  not  compared  them,  because  I  made  this 
report  up  independently  from — 

Mr.  DIXON.  The  hearings  before? 

Mr.  BURGESS.  No;  from  an  investigation  since  that  tune. 

Mr.  DIXON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Burgess.  We  are  much  obliged 
to  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  E.  H.  PITKIN,  OF  CHICAGO. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  consider  myself  lucky 
to  have  anybody  to  talk  to. 

I  represent  and  am  a  member  of  a  committee  of  the  largest  whole- 
sale dealers  of  pottery  and  crockery  and  earthenware  and  china  in 
the  United  States.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  appearing  before  this 
august  body  at  the  time  of  the  consideration  of  the  Dingley  bill,  at 
the  time  of  the  Payne  bill,  and  now  this  bill,  and  the  situation  having 
changed  a  little,  it  is  our  hope  that  our  plea  may  possibly  receive  a 
little  more  consideration. 

I  wish  to  emphasize  a  few  things  and  to  correct,  possibly,  a  few 
statements  that  were  made  by  our  chairman,  Mr.  Jones,  who  was, 
perhaps,  not  fully  posted  on  all  the  things  that  the  gentlemen  of  the 
committee  asked  him  about.  Mr.  Jones  is  the  Nestor  of  our  trade. 
He  is  a  most  able  man.  He  is  75  years  old.  Necessarily  some  of  the 
details  he  does  not  attend  to  quite  as  closely  as  he  used  to.  I  am 
not  so  very  much  younger  myself,  but  I  am  still  in  the  ring  and  am 
familiar  with  all  that  goes  on  in  my  own  business.  I  have  to  be,  as 
I  am  the  only  partner. 

I  have  been  in  the  business  forty-one  years,  and  I  am  not  a  free 
trader.  I  believe  in  the  protection  of  American  industries.  I  be- 
lieve they  should  be  protected.  I  believe  those  that  have  been  built 
up  under  a  protective  tariff  should  be  protected  and  the  duty  not 
unnecessarily  reduced.  But  I  also  believe  and  have  believed  for  some 
time  that  the  duty  on  earthenware,  particularly,  is  unnecessarily 
high,  and  for  this  reason.  The  American  potters,  by  reason  of  their 
proximity  to  the  trade,  their  ability  to  ship  in  carload  lots,  avoid  the 
necessity  of  expensive  packages.  English  earthenware  is  brought  in 
in  very  expensive  packages.  Entry,  including  the  cost  of  the  pack- 
age in  crates — you  nave  all  seen  the  crates  and  know  what  they  are — 
with  60  per  cent  duty  added  to  it,  and  the  freight  and  so  on,  costs 
almost  $7  apiece.  All  you  can  use  them  for  practically  is  to  sell 
them  to  ship  cabbage  in  at  50  cents'  apiece,  and  very  often  we  cut 
them  up  and  burn  them. 

It  adds  really  a  considerable  percentage  to  the  actual  tariff.  The 
tariff  is  60  per  cent,  and  we  figure  that  the  tariff  instead  of  being  60 
per  cent  often  comes  up  to  80  per  cent  on  different  lines  of  goods,  on 
more  bulky  goods. 

I  am  a  merchant.  I  am  not  a  manufacturer,  except  that  I  am  a 
manufacturer  of  cut  glass,  and  I  had  to  smile  at  some  things  I  heard 


608  TAEIFF   HEABITSrGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^POTTERY. 

here  yesterday.  I  buy  in  the  cheapest  market.  I  buy  for  cash.  I 
buy  domestic  goods.  I  am  not  prejudiced  against  domestic  goods. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  can  make  more  money  on  domestic  goods  than 
I  can  on  the  English  earthenware.  But  I  have  sold  English  earthen- 
ware, man  and  boy,  for  50  years,  and  it  is  somewhat  better  finished 
than  the  American  ware,  and  there  is  a  demand  for  it,  and  I  think 
that  it  must  be  allowed  to  come  in  at  a  reasonable  price. 

I  was  just  figuring  over  as  I  sat  here.  I  have  not  made  any  brief. 
Mr.  Jones  made  our  brief,  but  I  can  furnish  any  figures  that  anybody 
wants.  I  can  dig  them  up.  I  was  just  figuring  here  on  a  cup  and 
saucer.  Everybody  knows  what  a  cup  and  saucer  is.  The  ordinary 
cup  and  saucer,  white  cup  and  saucer,  that  every  mechanic  uses,  the 
poorest  families — the  trouble  up  in  Chicago  is  they  want  to  buy  them 
so  cheap  that  we  can  not  make  anything  on  them — but  I  can  buy  a 
good  quality  of  American  full-sized  cup  and  saucer  for  50.4  cents  a 
dozen.  Where  is  that  white  plate  that  was  here?  Has  that  been 
carried  off  ?  If  I  can  just  look  at  that  a  minute. 

I  have  four  minutes  left. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  allow  you  a  reasonable  time. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Mr.  Pitcairn  will  agree  with  me  that  this  is  the  best 
granite  made  in  the  world,  so  far  as  I  know. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Which  piece  is  that  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  That  is  the  English  piece. 

Now,  that  is  K.  T.  &  K.  This  is  one  of  the  best  Americanproducts. 
Isn't  that  so,  Burgess  ?  And  we  use  K.  T.  &  K.'s  goods.  Ihave  got 
a  little  something  I  want  to  say  about  that  a  little  later  if  I  have  the 
time.  We  do  not  use  this  firm's  white  ware,  but  we  use  white  ware 
that  is,  perhaps,  not  as  good  as  this.  I  don't  think  this  is  quite  as 
good,  but  it  is  a  very  good  white  ware  and  answers  the  purpose  very 
well,  and  the  ordinary  user  probably  does  not  know  the  difference. 

I  can  buy  those  American  cups  and  saucers  for  50.4  cents  a  dozen, 
and  the  cups  and  saucers  from  this  factory  landed  will  not  be — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  same  class  of  ware  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Well,  they  are  white  ware.  One  is  English  and  the 
Dther  is  American. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  it  is  the  same  class  of  ware  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  The  same  class  of  ware;  yes.  They  cost  me  landed  76 
cents.  They  cost  me  50  per  cent  more  than  the  other.  I  would  like 
to  know  how  anybody  can  defend  Mr.  Burgess  or  Mr.  Wells,  who  are 
awful  smart  men,  or  anybody  else — how  they  can  claim  that  they  need 
so  much  duty.  Why  make  the  consumer  pay  for  the  English  article 
based  on  a  cost  of  76  cents,  where  they  are  willing  to  sell  the  American 
article,  and  I  have  got  them  in  my  store  to-day,  and  get  them  by  the 
carload. 

Mr.  HILL.  Seventy-six  cents  duty  paid,  or  76  cents  net? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Duty  paid,  3.75  pounds  sterling. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  much  more  will  they  sell  for  in  this  market? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Well,  sir,  we  have  continued  to  sell  and  we  are  selling 
to-day  these  cups  and  saucers  for  5  pounds  sterling — a  dollar  a 
dozen.  We  sell  them  for  a  dollar  a  dozen.  We  have  been  selling  these 
[indicating]  for  Go  cents  a  dozen. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  State  what  you  mean  so  that  it  will  appear  in  the 
record. 


SCHEDULE  B.  609 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  We  have  been  selling  the  English  for  a  dollar  a  dozen, 
and  we  have  been  selling  the  domestic  for  65  cents,  but  we  are  going 
to  ask  more  for  them.  Why?  Because  the  domestic  people  have 
advanced  their  price,  according  to  their  statement,  because  they  have 
not  made  money  enough,  so  they  have  advanced  their  price  about  5 
per  cent  within  60  days. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  there  better  about  the  English  article  than  the 
other,  to  the  average  American  citizen,  in  what  way,  for  eating 
breakfast  on  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  That  is  best  answered,  I  think,  in  this  way:  The 
importation  of  the  English  ware  has  declined  from  120,000  crates 
down  to  35,000.  It  had  declined  from  four  million  and  a  half  in  1893 
or  1894  or  1890,  along  there,  to  about  2,000,000  in  1912.  The  Ameri- 
can public  have  found  out  that  they  could  buy  the  American  goods 
so  much  cheaper  that  they  are  buying  them,  and  they  will  not  pay 
us  the  difference.  You  know,  Mr.  Payne,  that  there  is  a  certain  trade- 
mark in  everything.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  minds  of  the  public. 
They  do  not  always  know  what  stuff  is  worth. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  why  really  should  they  not  pay  the  difference  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  In  the  nrst  place  the  goods  are  somewhat  better. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  are  they  better?  Do  they  last  longer?  Are 
they  tougher,  or  do  they  look  any  better,  or  how  are  they  better  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  That  is  the  reason  why  the  sale  of  English  ware  has 
so  declined,  because  people  are  not  experts;  they  do  not  see  much 
difference,  and  so  they  buy  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Yet  they  keep  on  talking  about  the  high  cost  of 
living.  I  should  think  they  would  buy  American  ware,  if  they  want 
the  cheaper. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  My  tune  is  up. 

The  sale  of  English  goods  is  declining,  and  has  declined  more  rapidly 
in  1911  and  1912.  We  are  one  of  the  largest  importers  of  earthen- 
ware, china,  and  glass  in  the  United  States.  We  have  got  a  large 
stock,  and  we  are  like  Jones,  you  know,  and  Kinley,  of  Cleveland. 
My  business  in  English  earthenware  has  declined  a  great  deal  more 
rapidly  in  1911  and  1912  than  ever  before.  When  we  sell  a  pattern 
of  English  earthenware  to  a  country  merchant  we  sell  him  in  the 
crate.  It  is  a  stock  pattern.  It  is  something  that  he  puts  in  and 
sells,  a  dozen  cups  or  sells  the  whole  set,  a  little  set,  or  a  larger  set, 
to  a  woman,  and  she  likes  it,  and  she  comes  back  for  it,  and  there  is  a 
demand  for  it  for  years  to  come,  and  for  that  reason  we  like  to  sell 
the  English  ware,  because  it  is  good,  and  because  people  come  back 
to  get  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  If  people  are  foolish  enough  to  pay  that  difference 
I  do  not  see  why  they  should  not  pay  it,  and  pay  the  revenue  on  the 
foreign  goods. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  You  said  a  moment  ago  that  the  American 
ware  had  been  advanced  in  price.  Do  you  think  that  they  were  able 
to  make  that  advance  because  of  the  tariff  against  the  English  goods  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  No ;  I  think  it  is  because  they  did  not  take  advantage 
of  the  tariffs  that  they  had,  and  they  were  foolish  enough  to  sell  it 
too  cheap. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 39 


610  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94r— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  know  there  is  a  large  line  of  goods  where  people 
buy  foreign  goods  in  preference  to  American  goods  at  the  same  price  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  So  much  so  that  in  1890  the  manufacturers  came  here 
and  asked  Congress  to  compel  them  to  put  a  brand  on  their  goods, 
because  they  said  they  were  getting  hurt  in  their  trade  by  the  selling 
of  foreign  goods  instead  of  domestic  goods,  and  that  has  been  kept 
in  the  tariff  ever  since,  and  was  put  there  at  the  request  of  Amer- 
ican manufacturers  on  a  showing  before  the  committee  in  1890. 
This  seems  to  be  a  monopoly  of  the  trade. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Yes. 

There  is  another  gentleman  here  whose  time  I  want  him  to  have. 
I  want  to  correct  just  one  or  two  things  said  this  morning.  Mr.  Long- 
worth  told  me  yesterday,  when  I  met  him  in  the  hall  and  asked 
him  a  question.  He  said,  "Don't  ask  me;  ask  the  Democrats; 
they  have  got  it  all  their  own  way."  But  he  said  on  freights  you 
claim,  you  merchants,  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  at  a  disad- 
vantage in  freights,  and  that  is  not  so.  They  spoke  about  the  ocean 
freights  being  8  cents  a  hundred.  That  is  past  history.  Ocean 
freights  are  25  cents  a  hundred. 

Another  thing,  there  is  no  through  import  rate  as  there  used  to 
be,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  on  English  goods  from  Liverpool  to  Chicago. 

I  used  to  bring  a  car  of  English  ware  to  Chicago,  weighing  1,000 
pounds,  for  $1.80.  Now  it  costs  me  $4.50.  So  that  this  through 
rate  that  Mr.  Burgess  speaks  of  is  done  away  with.  It  is  not  there. 
And  now,  mind  you,  it  costs  me  about — I  believe  I  am  not  sworn — 
but  the  freights  from  Liverpool  to  Chicago  are  about  45  cents  a  hun- 
dred now.  I  can  buy  the  same  kind  of  earthenware  from  Liver- 
pool— 

Mr.  BURGESS.  Do  you  know  what  the  rate  is  from  Liverpool  to 
Chicago?  It  is  about  41  cents.  It  costs  me  about  41  cents  from 
Liverpool  to  Chicago.  It  costs  me  about  21  cents  from  New  York  to 
Chicago,  and  41  cents  from  Liverpool  to  Chicago,  and  in  crates, 
whereas  there  is  no  package  charge,  so  you  see  that  the  bugaboo  is 
played  out.  It  is  not  true. 

Mr.  HILL.  According  to  your  statement  you  can  buy  a  dozen  cups 
and  saucers,  American  make,  at  50.4  cents,  and  it  costs  you  76  cents 
for  the  English  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  substantially  of  the  same 
quality? 

Mr.  PITKIX.  I  say  the  English  is  somewhat  better. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  in  consequence  of  this  tariff 
the  American  people  are  only  paying  3  cents  advance  instead  of 
26  cents,  and  the  other  is  practically  a  revenue  duty,  according  to 
your  own  figures.  The  American  manufacturer  is  not  taking  ad- 
vantage of  that  duty  if  he  is  selling  you  that  dozen  cups  and  saucers 
at  26.6  cents  less  than  you  can  buy  the  English? 

Mr.  PITKIX.  He  certainly  is  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  how  much  revenue  the  Govern- 
ment will  get  out  of  these  people  who  prefer  to  buy  the  English  goods. 
The  American  manufacturer  is  not  taking  advantage  of  this  cut, 
according  to  your  statement  ? 


SCHEDULE   B.  611 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  No. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  simply  a  revenue  proposition  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  "U  hy  should  the  Government  want  to  put  all  the  rev- 
enue onto  a  little  industry  and  compel  the  people  to  pay  a  much  larger 
price  than  they  need  to  pay,  or  shut  the  entire  product  out  of  the 
country  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  They  do  not  pay  any  more  than  if  there  was  no  duty, 
and  the  industry  is  carried  on  in  this  country,  and  it  is  simply  the  fad 
of  having  the  English  product,  and  let  those  who  have  the  fad  and 
want  to  cultivate  it,  to  educate  it,  pay  the  26  cents. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  I  think  they  do  Mr.  Hill,  and  if  the  duty  was  lower  they 
would  not  have  to  pay  so  much. 

Mr.  HILL.  Has  the  ^Englishman  raised  his  price  because  of  the  duty 
here  or  lowered  it  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  There  has  been  very  little  change  in  the  English  price. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  they  do  not  pay  any  more  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  For  some  time,  but  they  have  recently,  within  60  days, 
raised  their  price  on  account  of  the  increase  of  the  price  of  material 
over  there.  I  do  not  always  believe  what  a  manufacturer  told  me 
about  raising  the  price  of  materials.  I  like  to  judge  that  myself. 
I  am  pretty  well  acquainted  with  the  firm  of  Johnson  Bros.,  and 
there  is  not  a  better  firm  on  earth.  They  assured  me,  and  I  am  sure 
they  told  the  truth,  that  the  increase  in  gold  and  in  all  kinds  of  ma- 
terial had  obliged  them  to  raise  the  price.  Do  you  suppose  they  would 
have  raised  the  price  in  the  face  of  American  competition  if  tney  had 
not  had  to  ?  They  are  not  such  idiots  as  that  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  May  I  just  say  one  word  on  French  china?  There  was 
a  little  talk  about  French  china  here  this  afternoon.  I  am  an  im- 
porter of  French  china.  I  buy  direct.  I  buy  of  one  firm  from 
50,000  to  100,000  francs,  my  total  purchase  of  French  china.  I 
buy  it  as  cheap  as  I  can  land  it  in  New  York.  If  I  can  say  one  more 
word,  I  think  that  the  French  manufacturers  are  being  persecuted. 
I  know  them  personally.  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  but  what 
they  are  honest  men. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Would  you  not  feel  a  little  better  if  you  knew  they 
were  paying  duty  on  fair  valuation — all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  PITKIN.  I  do  not  believe  that  1  per  cent  of  the  French  china 
coming  into  the  United  States  does  not  pay  a  proper  duty,  and  the 
United  States  Government  has  not  got  a  single  case  against  a  French 
manufacturer — not  one. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Thev  have  had  many  cases. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  And  got  beat. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  were  running  away  from  indictment,  you  know. 

Mr.  PITKIN.  Only  one  man  ran  away  from  indictment,  and  if  he 
had  stayed  here  his  la\yyer  said  he  would  have  cleared  him,  and  that 
was  not  French  china;  it  was  German  china  or  Austrian  china.  They 
are  all  in  the  same  boat. 


612  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

STATEMENT  OF  JEROME  JONES,  OF  BOSTON,  MASS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  paragraph  do  you  refer  to,  Mr.  Jones  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Paragraphs  92,  93,  and  94. 

The  committee,  of  which  I  am  one,  consisting  of  Mr.  Pitkin,  of 
Chicago,  and  Mr.  Kinney,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  represents  the  whole- 
salers of  earthenware,  china,  and  glass  in  this  country,  representing 
about  $25,000,000  invested,  and  embracing  every  trade  center  from 
the  Atlantic  Coast  to  the  Pacific  and  the  Gulf.  They  sell  imported 
ware  and  American-made  ware,  and  they  come  in  contact  through 
their  commercial  travelers  with  every  retail  and  wholesale  center  in 
the  United  States.  Therefore  they  feel  the  pulse  of  the  consumer, 
without  exception,  in  all  of  these  trade  centers,  and  therefore  we  feel 
that  what  we  have  to  say  and  have  go  on  record  is  worthy  of  consid- 
eration of  any  one  in  authority  who  has  the  interest  of  the  consumer  at 
heart. 

Within  the  last  few  weeks  there  has  been  a  decided  advance  in  the 
selling  value  of  American  pottery  and  also  of  English  pottery.  Sea 
freights  have  nearly  doubled  since  I  testified  before  your  committee 
previously,  and  we  feel  that  the  revenue  of  the  country  is  an  impor- 
tant matter — and  without  considering  the  revenue,  what  would  be 
a  fair  protection  ?  They  go  hand  in  hand.  We  think  with  a  reason- 
able protection  the  revenue  will  be  increased  and  the  American  con- 
sumer will  have  the  benefit  of  competition.  We  think  the  retail 
dealer  and  the  consumer  have  a  right  to  fair  competition,  and  without 
taking  up  further  time  I  will  simply  read  the  brief  we  have  prepared 
and  signed,  and  will  hold  myself  subject  to  answer  any  question  that 
may  solve  any  doubt,  upon  which  we  are  able  to  throw  light. 

A  committee  of  three  of  us  have  been  authorized  by  a  convention 
of  delegates  to  represent  those  experienced  in  importing,  wholesaling, 
and  retailing  earthenware,  china,  and  glass  in  all  the  States  of  the 
Union.  Their  experience,  however,  is  not  confined  entirely  to  im- 
ported wares,  as  all  of  us  deal  largely  in  American  wares  for  the  same 
use,  which  gives  us  the  experience  as  to  the  comparative  value  and 
desirability  of  both  products.  Our  committee  have  appeared  before 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  at  hearings  four  years  ago  and  prior 
to  that,  all  of  which  are  on  record.  None  of  those  we  represent  are 
biased  because  of  any  ownership  in  either  foreign  or  American  pot- 
teries. We  feel  that  the  measures  of  protection  provided  for  in  the 
act  of  August  2S,  1894,  known  as  the  Wilson  Act,  to  wit,  30  and  35 
per  cent,  were  ample  for  the  purpose  of  securing  that  measure  of  pro- 
tection which  is  demanded  by  reason  of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
labor  and  materials  with  a  reasonable  profit  added. 

Crockery  is  a  necessity  to  every  family  in  the  land.  None  so  poor 
that  it  can  do  without  it;  the  farmer,  the  artisan;  in  brief,  every- 
body. We  feel  that  relief  by  means  of  a  substantial  reduction  of 
tariff  duties  should  be  seriously  considered  on  behalf  of  the  American 
consumer.  The  high  cost  of  living  will  be  reduced  by  giving  the  con- 
sumer the  benefit  of  competition.  As  dealers  we  continually  feel  the 
pulse  of  the  consuming  public,  and  we  believe  that  unnecessary  tariff 
burdens  are  being  imposed. 


SCHEDULE  B.  613 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

The  manufacture  of  American  wares  in  our  line  has  ceased  to  be 
an  infant  industry.  It  is  now  able  to  compete  even  without  any 
protective  tariff  on  the  common  lines  of  earthenware.  In  fact,  more 
than  two-thirds  of  the  product  used  in  this  country  is  American 
made.  On  some  of  the  higher  grades  they  are  not  yet  able  to  com- 
pete with  the  more  skillful  makers  abroad,  who  have  had  longer 
experience. 

English  earthenware  is  now  dutiable  at  55  per  cent  on  white  and 
60  per  cent  on  decorated,  but  adding  the  costly  outside  packages  neces- 
sary to  the  conveyance  of  fragile  wares,  and  dutiable  at  the  same  rate 
as  contents,  together  with  the  inland  freight  to  the  foreign  port  and 
sea  freight  to  the  American  port,  marine  insurance,  etc.,  brings  what 
appears  to  be  55  and  60  per  cent  duty  to  75  and  95  per  cent.  If  the 
tariff  were  reduced  to  30  per  cent  instead  of  55  and  60  per  cent,  the 
consumer  would  enjoy  the  benefit  and  a  substantial  revenue  be  pro- 
duced for  the  Government. 

The  pottery  industry  in  the  United  States  is  growing  rapidly;  new 
kilns  are  being  added  in  several  of  the  pottery  centers,  notwithstand- 
ing the  prospect  of  a  reduction  hi  the  tariff  tax.  We  have  the  evi- 
dence or  the  American  potters  themselves  that  their  business  is 
f rowing  rapidly,  and  they  expect  to  meet  the  competition  of  Europe, 
will  quote  the  words  of  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells  on  the  occasion  of  the  annual 
session  of  the  United  States  Potters'  Association,  convened  at  the 
Raleigh  Hotel,  Washington,  in  December,  1905,  to  wit: 

It  should  be  a  source  of  much  satisfaction  to  the  officers  and  members  of  this  asso- 
ciation that  we  are  just  about  to  close  a  business  year  in  which  the  volume  of  produc- 
tion of  the  general  ware  potteries  has  considerably  exceeded  that  of  any  previous 
year.  In  view  of  the  low  prices  prevailing,  especially  during  the  first  few  months, 
this  showing  should  be  considered  remarkable. 

Again  he  said: 

We  can  hardly  determine  at  this  time  just  how  much  of  this  increase  may  be  the 
result  of  stimulation  from  low  prices,  and  how  much  may  be  due  to  the  greatly 
improved  business  conditions  of  the  country  as  compared  with  1904.  While  there 
are  some  who  still  express  dissatisfaction  at  prevailing  conditions,  there  is  unques- 
tionably a  much  better  feeling  throughout  the  industry  than  there  was  a  year  ago 
and  a  considerably  increased  number  of  firms  will  close  the  business  of  this  year 
with  a  showing  on  the  right  side. 

He  also  said: 

The  British  importation  in  total  of  $3,800,000  is  33J  per  cent  less  than  the  importa- 
tion from  that  country  for  the  year  1895,  10  years  ago — and  it  would  seem  from  these 
statistics  that  the  American  potter  is  in  a  fair  way  to  win  the  home  market  for  W.  G. 
wares  and  P.  G.  wares,  plain  and  decorated. 

Then  he  said: 

The  French  china  will  doubtless  continue  to  hold  its  place  in  the  affections  of  the 
American  people  for  many  years  to  come,  but  the  domestic  pottery  is  rapidly  becom- 
ing a  competitor  of  the  German  on  the  fancy  goods.  The  improved  facilities  for 
decorating  introduced  in  recent  years  have  revolutionized  the  product  and  the  pos- 
sibilities in  commercial  pottery  and  our  people  are  beginning  to  realize  that  they 
are  able  to  produce  fancy  goods  in  a  style  and  at  a  price — 

Mind  you — 

to  fairly  compete  with  anything  from  Europe. 


614  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

These  were  the  words  of  the  president  of  the  United  States  Pot- 
ters' Association,  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells,  again  president  of  the  associa- 
tion in  1906,  who  made  the  following  remarks: 

If  volume  of  business  alone  means  prosperity  to  the  American  potter,  the  members 
of  this  association  have  abundant  reason  for  feeling  satisfied  with  the  results  of  the 
year  just  closing. 

While  these  quotations  from  Mr.  Wells  at  the  annual  convention 
was  several  years  ago,  no  one  can  doubt  but  what  the  volume  of 
business  has  largely  increased,  and  many  new  kilns  are  being  built. 

Mr.  H.  D.  Wintringer,  of  Steubenville,  Ohio,  president  of  the 
United  States  Potters'  Association,  at  their  annual  meeting  at  Pitts- 
burgh in  November  last,  said: 

As  an  organization  we  have  grown  steadily  and  safely  over  a  period  of  more  than  a 
third  of  a  century  until  now  we  are  producing  in  our  own  lines  probably  seventeen 
millions  worth  of  finished  product.  A  study  of  the  Government's  statistics  for  the 
past  three  years  reveals  some  satisfactory  information,  chief  of  which  is  the  authentic 
report  of  the  total  importations  for  the  last  Government  fiscal  year,  which  were 
$9,997,689  as  compared  with  $11,411,665  for  the  previous  period. 

An  attempt  was  made  some  years  ago,  when  the  Dingley  bill  was 
pending,  to  ingraft  an  absurd  provision  in  the  form  of  a  compound 
duty.  The  effect  would  have  proved  confusing  and  prohibitive,  but 
it  failed  when  scrutinized  in  the  Senate.  At  that  time  telegrams  were 
rushed  in  upon  Senators  and  Members  of  the  House  from  the  various 
potteries  in  Ohio  and  New  Jersey,  saying  that  unless  compound  duty 
were  provided,  raising  the  tariff  above  the  rates  finally  adopted  "the 
pottery  industry  in  this  country  would  be  paralyzed  and  the  smoke 
from  the  tall  chimneys  would  cease  to  rise."  The  crusade  to  ingraft 
specific  or  compound  duties  so  much  per  hundred  pounds,  avoirdupois, 
and  also  an  ad  valorem  attached,  would  have  been  impracticable  and 
absurd.  The  compound  duty  was  eliminated,  and  what  happened? 
No  paralysis  of  the  pottery  industry,  the  smoke  continued  to  rise 
from  the  tall  chimneys,  many  new  kilns  have  been  built  and  the 
industry  has  progressed. 

We  believe  in  a  simple  ad  valorem  duty,  understood  by  all,  that 
will  be  fully  and  fairly  collected. 

The  rate*  of  duty  has  been  increased  10  per  cent  in  1784-1794,  20 
per  cent  in  1816-1842,  24  per  cent  in  1857-1861,  40  per  cent  in  1864- 
1883,  55  por  cent  to  60  per  cent  under  present  law,  plus  the  duty  on 
the  cost  of  outside  packages  and  the  geographical  protection  given  by 
bringing  goods  from  such  distant  points  justifies  our  making  for  a 
substantial  reduction  in  the  tariff  tax. 

Let  me  mention  the  fact  of  the  steady  diminution  in  the  importation 
from  Liverpool  for  the  last  10  years  and  more,  for  example: 

In  1895,  121,374  crates  and 'casks;  10  years  later,  in  1905,  45,896 
crates  and  casks:  1911,  35,620  crates  and  casks. 

During  the  last  10  years  the  importations  of  French,  German,  and 
Austrian  china  have,  on  the  whole,  remained  about  stationary,  in  some 
years  showing  a  slight  increase,  in  others  a  decrease.  It  is  from  the  fact 
that  they  make  a  class  of  translucent  china  in  tableware  that  satisfies 
the  pride  of  the  farmer's  wife  and  daughter.  A  plate  held  up  to  the 
light  shows  its  translucency,  and,  while  it  is  really  china,  it  is  made 
in  such  quantities  and  so  attractively  that  it  has  its  place  in  the  pride 
of  those  who  want  something  better  than  the  ordinary  opaque  ware. 


SCHEDULE  B.  615 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

In  reference  to  the  sale  and  use  of  English  pottery,  it  is  observed 
that  the  importations  in  1911  were  practically  the  same  volume  in 
Canada  as  to  the  United  States,  $2,000,000  to  each  country  in  value. 
In  the  United  States  these  $2,000,000  paid  a  duty  of  60  per  cent  plus 
freights  and  expenses,  while  into  Canada  the  duty  was  only  15  per 
cent,  thus  saving  the  Canadian  consumer  more  than  a  million  dollars. 

We  have  formulated  with  great  care  a  reclassification  of  what  should 
be  assessed  at  the  low  rate  and  that  which  should  be  assessed  at  the 
higher  rate,  recommending  duty  on  the  commonest,  of  which  there 
is  very  little  imported,  as  follows : 

Paragraph  92.  Common  yellow,  brown,  red,  or  gray  earthenware,  brown  stoneware; 
plain,  embossed,  or  salt  glazed.  Stoneware  and  crucibles,  all  the  foregoing,  not  deco- 
rated in  any  manner,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Page  93:  China,  porcelain,  bisque,  and  Parian  ware  composed  of  a  nonabsorbent 
and  translucent  body,  not  specially  provided  for,  including  clock  cases  with  or  without 
movements,  and  all  other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware, 
all  of  the  foregoing  plain,  embossed,  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  35  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

Page  94:  Earthenware,  stoneware,  crockery,  white  granite,  and  semiporcelain, 
Rockingham,  jet,  and  Samian  ware,  whether  or  not  vitrified  in  whole  or  in  part,  or 
whether  or  not  composed  of  a  hard  opaque  but  porous  body,  capable  of  absorbing 
moisture,  including  plates,  cups,  saucers  and  other  articles  or  pieces,  such  as  are 
commonly  used  in  breakfast,  dinner,  tea,  and  similar  table  sets,  toilet  sets,  hotel 
ware;  pill  tiles,  clock  cases,  with  or  without  movements,  plaques,  ornaments,  toys, 
vases,  statues,  statuettes,  mugs,  steins,  and  lamps,  together  with  all  other  articles 
composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  such  ware,  all  of  the  foregoing,  plain,  embossed 
or  decorated  in  any  manner,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  recommend  a  somewhat  higher  duty  on  translucent  china, 
believing  that,  in  adhering  to  the  ad  valorem  duty,  it  is  a  fair  tax, 
readily  understood  by  all.  For  example,  a  cheap  china  dinner  set 
of  130  pieces,  if  it  cost  $10,  at  35  per  cent  the  duty  would  be  $3.50.  If 
it  is  a  richly  decorated  service,  costing  $100,  the  duty  would  be  $35, 
as  against  $3.50  for  the  cheaper  one,  which  figures  out  the  ad  valorem 
method  logically. 

This  reclassification  between  china  and  earthenware  would  elimi- 
nate ambiguities  which  often  lead  to  litigation  and  long  delays  in 
liquidating  an  entry.  We  have  talked  with  those  who  are  familiar 
with  the  appraiser's  work,  and  it  is  agreed  that  this  would  be  a 
reasonable  and  desirable  change  in  assessing  duties. 

We  can  give  you  any  necessary  statistics  on  the  comparative  cost 
between  products  of  earthenware  and  china  in  this  country,  and  also 
of  foreign  wares  which  compete,  and  will  supply  them,  if  you  desire  it, 
over  pur  signature. 

This  is  signed  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Pitkin  of  Chicago,  Mr.  George  W. 
Kirmey  of  Cleveland,  and  myself.  We  have  all  been  in  the  whole- 
saling of  ware,  both  American  and  foreign,  for  our  lifetime. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  I  would  like  to  asK  a  question  or  two. 

What  is  the  import  price  of  dinner  sets  of  100  pieces  that  retail  here 
for  $25  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  there  are  so  many  different  kinds  and  different 
makes.  I  should  say  that  a  dinner  set  that  would  wholesale  for  $15 
would  retail  for  $25. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  On  that  $15  wholesale  price  dinner  set  what  is  the 
import  price  ? 


616  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94^-POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  if  the  wholesaler  is  able  to  make  10  to  12.5  per 
cent  he  is  satisfied. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  are  the  cheapest  dinner  sets  that  are  imported  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  depends,  of  course,  on  how  many  pieces. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Say  a  dinner  set  of  100  pieces. 

Mr.  JONES.  One  hundred  and  thirty  pieces  is  rather  large. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  say  100  pieces. 

Mr.  JONES.  Will  you  let  me  get  your  question  better  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  say  how  cheap  is  the  cheapest  class  of  dinner  sets 
of  100  pieces  that  are  imported? 

Mr.  JONES.  You  mean  with  some  decoration  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  No;  not  decorated. 

Mr.  JONES.  That  would  be  white  ware. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  White  ware;  yes,  under  paragraph  92. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  say  $4.80. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  $4.80.     I  mean  the  cost  of  the  white. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Under  paragraph  94,  china  porcelain,  white  and 
plain  brown,  comes  in  at  55  per  cent.  Of  that  class  of  goods  some  are 
imported  as  low  as  how  much? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  think,  for  an  offhand  answer,  $4.80  would  be 
the  cheapest. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Under  paragraph  94,  including  the  white  and  plain 
brown,  there  were  imported  in  1912  one  million  eleven  thousand  and 
some  few  hundred  dollars'  worth.  What  proportion  of  that  would 
you  say  would  be  dinner  sets  of  100  pieces  on  which  the  import  price 
would  not  be  in  excess  of  §10  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Do  you  mean  under  paragraph  94  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Ninety-four — that  is.  plain  white  and  plain  brown, 
not  decorated  and  not  painted.  In  1912  we  imported  a  little  over  a 
million  dollars'  worth,  a  million  and  eleven  thousand  dollars.  What 
proportion  of  that  would  be  dinner  sets  of  100  pieces,  the  import  price 
of  which  would  not  exceed  $10  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  would  say  your  figures  there  would  be  my  answer — 
about  a  million  dollars  worth,  or  a  million  and  a  half  dollars  perhaps. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  that  practically  all  of  that  which  came  in,  in  your 
opinion,  would  be  dinner  sets  the  import  price  of  which  would  not 
exceed  S10? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  in  that  classification.  Some  lines  are  verv  cheap 
and  others  are  better.  Some  are  double  the  lowest  price,  I  mean. 
It  varies,  according  to  decoration. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  These  are  undecorated. 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh;  plain  white? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  plain  white;  yes.  We  imported,  as  I  say 
SI, 01 1,000  worth  last  year.  What  proportion  of  that  would  you  say 
cost  under  $10  a  set,  import  price? 

Mr.  JONES.  Nearly  half  of  it, 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  proportion  cost  not  to  exceed  $5? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  could  not  classify  that  so  as  to  give  an  answer  that  I 
would  feel  was  intelligent.  I  never  have  seen  it  classified. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  there  any  considerable  portion  of  those  dinner 
sets  that  come  in  the  import  price  of  which  would  be  four  and  five 
dollars  ? 


SCHEDULE  B.  617 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  yes;  I  think  there  is  a  considerable  portion  of 
them. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Of  the  plain  white? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  not  the  plain  white. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  a  considerable 
portion  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  mean  what  would  be  called  the  lower  grade  of  deco- 
rated ware. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Decorated  ware  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  decorated  ware  cheaper  than  plain  white  ware  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  and  no.  Decorated  ware  is  made  cheaper  because 
on  the  pieces  that  are  selected  for  decoration  oftentimes  they  decorate 
over  blemishes.  In  the  hard  firing  of  pottery,  little  blemishes,  little 
bits  of  blisters,  which  you  might  not  detect,  but  which  I  should 
detect,  occur,  and  they  can  print  right  over  those  little  blemishes; 
so  that  they  can  produce  decorated  ware  oftentimes  cheaper  on  that 
account,  because  they  cover  up  some  of  the  little  imperfections. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  see  in  1912  we  imported  of  decorated  china, 
chinaware,  decorated,  painted,  etc.,  about  $8,000,000  worth.  What 
proportion  of  that  would  be  dinner  sets  whose  import  price  would  not 
be  in  excess  of  $25  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  that  would  involve  the  whole  decorated  output, 
I  suppose. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  JONES.  That  runs  all  the  way  from  sets  that  would  cost  $15 
to  $30  to  $40  and  upward.  In  that  case  "the  punishment  to  fit 
the  crime" — no  matter  how  high  the  cost  of  the  set,  the  ad  valorem 
duty  would  reach — 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  I  understand  that.  What  I  am  get- 
ting at  is  this:  Was  all  of  this  $8,000,000  worth  of  imports  high-priced 
china? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  proportion  would  you  say  of  that  was  dinner 
sets  that  exceeded  $25  import  price  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  think  it  was  a  third  of  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  About  a  third  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Or  a  quarter  of  it,  I  should  say,  because  the  great  mass 
that  comes  in  is  for  the  middle  class — the  class  that  can  not  afford 
high-priced  sets. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  think  the  greater  proportion  of  that  is  china 
that  is  imported  for  the  middle  classes  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Surely. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  make  any  high- 
class  china  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir.    , 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  they  make  china  that  would  wholesale  to  exceed 
$50  a  set  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  It  is  made  by  several  potters.  I  have  in  mind  a  potter 
that  makes  ware  up  on  the  level  of  the  high-cost  decorations,  and  they 
are  successful.  They  do  not  have  a  large  output,  but  they  are  suc- 
cessfully competing  and  have  an  output  that  satisfies  the  customer 
who  wants  a  high-class  decorated  set.  They  are  successfully  com- 
peting now,  but  only  two  or  three  potteries. 


618  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  are  those  sets  classified?  They  are  composed 
of  how  many  pieces — 75,  100,  112,  or  115? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  the  answer  to  that  is  that  where  we  import  a  great 
many  sets  we  have  to  import  an  open  stock,  so  that  a  customer  can 
buy  anything  he  wants  to.  He  is  not  obliged  to  confine  himself  to  a  set. 
You  could  hardly  find  a  woman  customer  who  would  want  exactly  the 
same  combination  of  pieces,  so  that  the  class  of  dealers  to  which  I 
belong  have  to  have  an  open  stock.  We  carry  an  open  stock  to  satisfy 
any  retail  customer  or  wholesale  customer. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  always  buy  them  in  sets  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  necessarily;  not  one-half  are  imported  in  sets. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  what  is  the  rule,  that  they  do  or  do  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  a  good  proportion  of  them  will  buy  dinner  sets. 
Then  they  patch  them  up  afterwards — 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing) .  What  are  the  wholesale  classifications  in 
this  country  of  dinner  sets  and  tea  sets  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  it  may  be  100  or  it  may  be  110  or  it  may  be  130. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  have  a  regular  number  of  pieces  for  different 
sets,  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  As  a  rule;  yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  is  the  general  rule  ?  What  is  the  number  of 
pieces  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  plates,  cups,  saucers,  and  meat  dishes — 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing) .  I  know,  but  how  many  in  a  set  ?  You 
see  them  advertising  a  dinner  set  of  100  pieces  or  115  pieces  or  130 
pieces  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  it  is  according  to  the  fancy  of  the  dealer  and  the 
fancy  of  his  customer.  There  is  no  absolute  formulae  as  to  what  a 
dinner  set  should  be.  Some  think  it  ought  to  be  larger  on  plates  and 
some  less;  some  think  it  ought  to  be  larger  on  platters  and  less  on 
pitchers,  and  so  forth.  There  is  no  cookbook  rule  about  it. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  deal  in  any  of  the  articles  in  paragraph 
92? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir:  but  we  do  not  import  any,  because  they  are 
made  cheaper  here.  You  take  the  common  yellow  ware  and  things 
that  go  into  the  kitchen  and  the  American  market  has  had  those  for 
years.  We  can  not  import.  Any  importer  that  would  import  those 
lines  and  pay  the  duty,  they  would  want  him  in  a  dime  museum 
as  a  curiosity. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH,  Are  any  of  the  articles  enumerated  in  paragraph 
92  a  substantial  part  of  your  business  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  beg  your  pardon  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  any  of  the  articles  enumerated  in  paragraph 

92  a  substantial  part  of  your  business  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  yes;  we  get  them  by  the  carload  from  the  Ohio 
potteries,  and  have  for  several  years. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  you  import  all  comes  in  under  paragraphs 

93  and  94  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  buy  in  the  open  market  abroad  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 


SCHEDULE  B.  619 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  represent  any  particular  firms,  any 
English  firms  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  we  buy  where  we  can  buy  cheapest. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  do  not  act  as  agent  for  any  firms  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  and  never  have. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  proportion  of  those  articles  in  paragraphs 
93  and  94,  dinner  sets  and  things  of  that  sort,  of  the  amount  that  you 
sell  do  you  import  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  might  be  answered  in  two  ways.  It  might  be  in 
dinner  sets  or  it  might  be  in  what  we  call  open  stock,  from  which  to 
make  up  dinner  sets,  according  to  the  fancy  of  the  retailer  we  sell  to. 
There  is  no  formula  for  dinner  sets  except  according  to  the  fancy  of 
the  dealer  or  his  customer. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  sell  mostly  American  ware  or  foreign 
ware  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  the  majority  of  the  ware  we  sell  is  foreign  ware, 
although  we  deal  largely  in  American  ware.  We  get  American  ware 
at  the  potteries  by  the  carload. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  buy  direct  from  the  potteries  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  On  the  average,  which  do  you  get  the  most  for  in 
the  market,  the  American  or  the  foreign  ware,  of  the  same  quality  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  say  we  get  most  for  the  foreign  ware. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  In  other  words,  does  not  the  foreign  ware,  the 
same  thing,  if  made  abroad,  sell  for  a  greater  price  here  than  the 
American  ware  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir;  because  it  is  better  ware,  better  potting,  and 
it  sells  on  its  merits. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  think  it  is  better  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  know  it  is.  I  have  been  in  the  business  50  years. 
Why,  a  blind  man  could  take  a  plate,  for  example,  of  American  ware 
and  feel  around  the  edge  or  feel  the  face  of  it,  and  he  can  find  the 
roughness  of  it,  while  with  the  best  foreign  potteries  a  blind  man  can 
feel  around  the  edge  and  he  would  say  that  that  was  a  good  article. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  the  merit  of  the  manufacture  of  it,  although 
there  is  some  American  ware  made  here  very  well. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  the  American  manufacturer  has  not  learned 
to  do  it  as  well  as  the  foreign  manufacturer  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  he  is  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  potters.  I 
think  they  control  it.  They  say,  "You  make  so  and  so  or  we  will 
lay  down  our  tools  and  quit." 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  mean  the  potters'  union? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Are  there  any  unions  abroad? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  there  are  unions  abroad,  but  not  under  any 
such  iron  rules. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  think  the  American  potters  are  at  a  disad- 
vantage on  account  of  union  labor  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  In  that  respect  I  do. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  So  that  the  American  potter  is  at  a  disadvantage 
not  only  in  the  size  of  wage  that  he  has  to  pay,  but  is  also  at  a  dis- 
advantage on  account  of  the  union  rules  ? 


620  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94r— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONE§.  Yes,  sir;  we  call  it  the  oligarchy  of  labor,  if  you  please, 
or  tyranny  of  labor,  whatever  that  may  be.  If  I  was  an  American 
workman  I  would  want  to  get  all  that  I  could,  and  I  would  want  to 
get  the  shortest  hours  I  could.  I  recognize  that,  and  I  would  be  so 
if  I  was  an  American  workman. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then,  of  course,  under  those  circumstances, 
without  a  substantial  duty,  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  any 
American  manufacturer  to  exist? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  I  think  they  are  getting  along  with  it.  They 
have  a  market  for  their  product.  We  are  among  their  customers. 
Those  things  right  themselves.  The  American  workingman  will  see 
his  duty  and  his  interest,  the  longer  he  lives,  and  it  is  going  to  be  a 
question  of  master  against  labor,  finally. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  think  the  unions  will  modify  the  strictness 
of  their  rules  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do.     I  think  they  are  intelligent  enough  to  do  that. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  I  asked  you  was  if,  under  those  circum- 
stances, the  American  industries  could  exist  without  a  substantial 
duty. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  that  is  so  in  many  lines.  In  many  of  the  other 
lines  they  do  not  need  any  duty  whatever. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  speaking  of  the  fairly  high-grade  lines 
which  compete. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  they  need  reasonable  protection. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  much  of  the  American  consumption  of 
to-day,  let  us  say,  of  dinner  sets,  is  imported  and  how  much  of  it  is 
homemade  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  could  answer  that  better  from  statistics;  however,  I 
know  we  deal  largely  in  both,  and  more  particularly  in  the  foreign 
ware,  because  it  suits  the  trade  better. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  a  great  deal  more 
foreign  dinner  ware  sold  here  than  there  is  American  ware  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  so,  excepting  the  poorer  classes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  A  little  while  ago  you  spoke  of  reducing  the  duty 
in  order  to  restore  competition. 

Mr.  JONES.  Surely. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  not  think  there  is  competition  here  now, 
where  a  majority  of  the  American  consumption  is  imported? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  think  the  majority  of  the  American  consump- 
tion is  imported. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  just  said  it  was. 

Mr.  JONES.  Then  you  misunderstood  me. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  lie  said  of  the  high-class  articles. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  do  you  call  high  class  ?     At  what  price  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  is  difficult  to  answer.  You  take  the  cheaper 
grades  for  family  use  and  you  could  not  import  anything  more 
salable.  There  are  cheap  lines  in  foreign  ware. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes.  In  other  words,  there  is  competition  right 
through,  is  there  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  There  is  competition  right  through  and  there  always 
will  be. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  spoke  of  restoring  competition.  Now,  you 
are  admitting  that  there  is  competition. 


SCHEDULE  B.  621 

PARAGRAPHS   952-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  Of  course  there  is  competition. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  why  should  you  want  to  restore  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  A  large  part  of  the  foreign  ware  that  we  deal  in  would 
come  in  anyway,  because  it  is  made  much  cheaper  and  the  American 
potters  have  a  great  advantage  in  freight.  I  am  glad  you  brought 
that  out. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes.  I  would  like  to  hear  what  you  have  to  say 
about  it. 

Mr.  JONES.  For  example,  we  buy  in  East  Liverpool  in  carload  lots. 
They  pack  that  in  a  box  car  without  any  packing  whatever,  except 
just  the  straw.  That  box  car  will  hold,  we  will  say,  60  crates.  That 
comes  to  our  warehouse  and  is  unloaded  without  any  cost  of  packing. 
Now  compare  that  with  the  foreign  article  which  must  be  packed  ia 
costly  outside  packages,  because  of  the  fragile  nature  of  its  contents, 
and  the  duty  is  the  same  on  that  costly  outside  package  as  it  is  on 
the  contents.  You  will  see  the  advantage  the  American  potter  has 
in  selling  us  where  the  packages  are  of  no  value  and  of  no  cost  to  him. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  mean  to  say  as  a  general  thing  that  the 
rate  on  American  pottery  is  less  than  the  rate  on  English  pottery  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  The  freight  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  JONES.  When  you  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  they 
pack  it  in  carload  lots,  decidedly  so. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  We  have  had  testimony  precisely  to  the  contrary, 
to  the  effect  that  the  rate  on  English  pottery  from  Liverpool  to  points 
inland  is  less,  the  whole  entire  rate,  than  the  rate  on  American  pottery 
for  one-tenth  of  the  distance. 

Mr.  JONES.  That  existed  several  years  ago.  The  rate,  for  example, 
to  Baltimore  was  very  much  less  than  it  is  now.  Sea  freights  have 
advanced  very  much.  The  rate  of  freight  that  has  been  alluded  to 
here  ceased  to  exist.  It  is  a  high  rate  now. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  think  I  can  turn  to  that  testimony  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  Mr.  Wells's  testimony. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  think  I  can  find  that. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  deal  in  both  foreign  and  domestic  pottery? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  the  amount  of  your  sales,  annually  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  About  a  million  dollars. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  the  average  per  cent  of  profit  on  your  sales  ? 
Do  you  have  any  objection  to  stating  that  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  On  our  sales  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  JONES.  If  we  can  make  6  per  cent  net  we  are  contented. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Six  per  cent  profit  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  sell  French  pottery? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  buy  from  the  agent  in  France  directly? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  From  whom  do  you  buy  directly? 

Mr.  JONES.  There  are  several  potteries  we  buy  from  directly.  I 
can  not  name  them  offhand.  I  can  supply  the  names. 


622  TAKIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Why  can  you  not  name  them  offhand  ?  Is  it  because 
the  amount  you  buy  from  those  potteries  is  so  small  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  it  is  because  I  have  grown  to  be  75  years  old,  and 
I  am  not  so  familiar  with  the  details  of  our  business  as  I  was  10 
years  ago. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  not  handle  considerable  Haviland  china  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  buy  any  of  that  directly  from  Haviland  hi 
France  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No,  sir;  we  do  not. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  buy  any  china  in  France  directly,  where  you 
buy  a  large  line  of  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir;  we  do. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  From  whom  do  you  buy  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  will  have  to  supply  the  names  of  the  potteries. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  will  have  to  supply  the  names  of  the  potteries.  As 
Mr.  Wells  said  yesterday,  our  books  are  open  to  you  if  you  want  to 
see  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  not  able  to  name  any  one  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Xot  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  not  the  bulk  of  the  china  you  handle  Haviland 
china  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  the  larger  part  of  it.  We  import  a"  great  deal 
of  German  china — 

Mr.  PAYNE  (interposing).  But  of  the  French  china  the  bulk  of  it 
is  Haviland.  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Where  do  you  buy  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  If  we  are  in  Limoge  we  leave  our  order  there — 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  If  our  buyers  happen  to  be  in  Limoge  they  leave  an 
order  there. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Where  do  you  regularly  buy  your  Haviland  china? 

Mr.  JONES.  We  give  an  order  when  their  agent  comes  along. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  you  buy  it  in  New  York  of  then-  agent,  do 
you  not? 

Mr.  JONES.  Sometimes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  almost  universally,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  JONES.  No. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Does  not  all  that  you  buy  come  there? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  it  comes  through  New  York;  yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Why  do  you  buy  it  in  New  York  instead  of  importing 
it  directly  from  France } 

Mr.  JONES.  Because  wo  are  satisfied  to  buy  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Because  we  are  satisfied  to  buy  it  in  the  usual  way. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  not  applied  to  the  Haviland  house  in  France, 
directly,  to  buy  it,  3-011  yourself  time  and  again? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  years  ago  I  used  to  be  the  foreign  buyer. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  How  many  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  began  in  1866  and  went  over  there  every  season  for 
15  years. 


SCHEDULE  B.  623 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  Mr.  Jones,  that  you  can  buy  it  duty 
paid  in  New  York  considerably  cheaper  than  you  can  buy  it  in 
France  at  the  prices  paid  there  and  pay  the  duty  on  it  to  land  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  any  suspicion  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  my  suspicions  were  never  aroused. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Your  suspicions  were  never  aroused? 

Mr.  JONES.  My  suspicions  were  never  aroused  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  never  have  been  aroused  on  that  subject  at  all  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Are  you  not  satisfied  that  the  duty  that  they  pay  is  at 
a  lower  valuation  than  the  price  they  ask  in  France  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Are  you  not  satisfied  that  the  duty  you  pay  is  on  a 
lower  valuation  for  those  goods  than  they  sell  for  in  France  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Inasmuch  as  we  buy  of  other  Limoges  factories  I  can  not 
say.  We  buy  it  from  competing  factories. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  can  not  say  that  you  are  satisfied  of  it. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  "satisfied." 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Can  you  say  that  your  suspicion  has  never  been  aroused 
on  that  subject? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  never  had  occasion  to  have  it  aroused. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  there  any  association  of  importers  of  this  kind  of 
china,  or  wholesalers,  that,  when  one  of  them  has  some  trouble  with 
the  customhouse,  it  is  referred  to  a  committee  of  this  association  or 
organization,  or  whatever  you  call  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  not  a  party  to  any  such  association. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  not  positive  about  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  not  a  party  to  any  such  association. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  not  in  touch  with  any  such  association? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  not  a  party  to  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  not  a  party  to  it? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know- 
Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  belong  to  any  kind  of  association,  or  a 
party  to  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  of  parties;  no. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Of  importers,  I  mean.  Of  course,  when  you  buy 
direct  in  New  York,  you  do  not  have  trouble  in  the  customhouse, 
yourself,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  not  a  party  to  any  of  these  cases? 

Mr.  JONES.  No. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  suppose  you  never  heard  of  them? 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  yes;  I  have  heard  about  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  ever  heard  about  any  of  the  importers  being 
indicted  and  disappearing? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Are  you  active  in  the  business? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  do  not  leave  that  to  the  younger  men  I 


624  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTEBY. 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  I  know  pretty  well  what  is  going  on  in  our  store. 

Mr.  PAYNE,  I  am  glad  to  nnd  out  that  you  do. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Now,  you  must  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  your 
china  duty  paid  to  the  New  York  house  is  at  a  less  price  than  as 
though  the  honest  duty  was  paid  on  a  fair  valuation  in  France. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know  that,  as  you  state  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  not  had  some  suspicion  about  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  Thave  heard  this  talk,  this  gossip;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Why  is  it  you  try  to  buy  direct,  instead  of  buying 
through  the  agent  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  because  it  is  more  convenient  to  us  to  give 
orders  as  we  give  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  there  any  other  branch  that  you  import  from 
abroad,  where  you  buy  from  the  agent  in  New  York  instead  of  buy- 
ing from  abroad  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  In  some  instances;  yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  part  of  the  world  is  that  in? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  we  will  suppose  that  an  English  party  has  an 
agency  here  and  the  agent  came  in  and  showed  us  samples,  and  gave 
us  his  prices,  and  we  will  give  him  an  order. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  firm  is  that  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  can  not  give  you  the  name  at  this  moment.  But 
there  are  those.  I  know  that  my  partners  give  orders  to  them. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  in  touch  with  the  business.  Are  there  any 
members  of  your  firm  who  would  be  able  to  give  offhand  the  names 
of  the  firms  you  buy  from  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  We  would  be  glad  to  show  you  our  books. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Your  books,  of  course. 

Mr.  JONES.  But  I  do  not  remember. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Could  the  younger  men  give  the  names  of  the  cus- 
tomers offhand  without  the  books  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  sell  English  earthenware? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  represent  it  as  better  than  the  American  earthen- 
ware ? 

Mr.  JONES.  1  think  so. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  advanced  the  price  10  per  cent  of  the  English 
earthenware  within  two  months? 

Mr.  JONES.  We  have  advanced  our  prices  within  a  few  weeks. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  have  advanced  it  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  say  rather  less  than  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  did  you  advance  your  prices  near  10  per  cent, 
or  what '( 

Mr.  .IONES.  Between  o  and  10  per  cent,  I  should  say,  because  the 
increase  in  sea  freights  has  necessitated  it, 

Mr.  PAYNF..  Well,  vou  made  a  substantial  advance? 

Mr.  JONES.   Yes.  ' 

Mr.  PAYNE.  1  suppose  that  is  in  the  interest  of  the  low  cost  of  living 
that  you  were  so  anxious  about  a  few  moments  ago. 


SCHEDULE   B.  625 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  suppose  the  English  parties  have  increased  their 
prices  because  of  the  cost  of  the  labor  and  material. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  were  able  to  fix  their  price,  notwithstanding  this 
duty? 

Mr.  JONES.  Of  course  they  are. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  put  it  higher  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  They  nad  to  fix  their  price  in  order  to  live. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  recommend  that  the  English  pottery  is  better 
than  the  American.  Have  you  any  interest  that  would  lead  you  that 
way,  or  might  tend  to  dp  so?  I  do  not  say  it  does. 

Mr.  JONES.  As  I  said  hi  my  brief,  the  dealers  that  I  represent  have 
no  interest  in  anv  American  or  foreign  pottery  whatever. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Oh,  no.  Let  me  suggest  something.  The  American 
potters  serve  retailers,  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Largely  so  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  At  about  the  same  terms  they  sell  to  you? 

Mr.  JONES.  Very  near  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  the  English  allow  you  a  wholesome  profit.  They 
do  not  sell  to  the  retailers  as  cheaply  as  they  sell  to  you,  in  other 
words  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Probably  not. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  you  know  that,  don't  you? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  goes  without  saying. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  is  to  the  interest  of  your  firm  to  sell  English  goods 
and  not  the  American  goods  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  necessarily  so. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  get  a  larger  percentage  of  profit,  don't  you? 

Mr.  JONES.  We  bring  our  goods  in  in  carload  lots  of  American 
ware — that  gives  us  an  advantage  as  distributors  of  that  product— 
so  that  we  sell  a  large  amount  of  American  pottery  alongside  of  and 
in  the  same  day  as  foreign  pottery,  because  we  can  make  a  profit  on  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Does  not  nearly  all  of  the  French  china  come  in,  and 
is  it  not  sold  by  agents  in  New  York,  and  not  by  the  French  house  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  As  I  said,  there  are  several — 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Now,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  other 
houses  to  compete  here  and  receive  any  profit,  with  these  New  York 
branch  houses  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  know  that  some  of  the  Limoges  potters  sell  direct, 
and  we  buy  of  them  direct. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  to  no  great  amount  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  so  great  as  the  class  you  speak  of. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Well,  no  great  amount  is  it?  It  is  a  small  percentage 
of  what  comes  in. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  a  small  percentage  -plenty  of  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  for  special  lines,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  general  Lines. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Yes ;  but  the  special  goods  that  have  some  advantage 
in  the  market  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No  particular  advantages. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 40       • 


626  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Is  it  not  impossible  for  a  French  house  to  send  their 
goods  and  sell  it  direct  to  you  and  compete  with  these  agencies  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  They  do. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Not  to  any  alarming  extent,  do  they  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  I  know  there  are  several  potters  in  Limoges, 
from  which  we  buy  direct,  right  alongside  of  the  other  potters. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  What  percentage  would  you  say  of  your  French 
china  is  sold  direct  from  France  without  the  intervention  of  any  of 
their  agents  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  want  to  couple  with  that  my  answer  on  the  cheaper 
grades  of  French  china  and  the  cheaper  grades  of  German  china. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  was  speaking  about  the  French  china. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  have  not  the  figures  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  know  of  any  French  china  coming  in  in  that 
way? 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  yes;  we  import  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  But  not  to  any  great  extent. 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  to  any  great  extent,  comparatively. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  The  Government  had  a  commission  examine  into 
these  matters  in  the  past  year,  did  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  that  commission  went  to  Haviland  and  these 
other  dealers,  in  order  to  see  their  books,  did  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  have  heard  so;  I  do  not  know. 

Mr  PAYNE.  And  they  would  not  allow  them  to  see  their  books  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  what  you  heard  is  it  not? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  is  what  I  heard;  yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  They  do  not  take  the  same  position  that  the  American 
potters  do;  that  their  books  are  open  to  inspection? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Did  that  arouse  your  suspicions? 

Mr.  JONES.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Not  necessarily.     Well,  that  is  all. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Mr.  Payne  asked  you  about  the  undervaluation  of 
those  imports  at  the  customhouse,  Mr.  Jones.  Could  that  be  done  if 
the  officers  were  efficient  and  capable? 

Mr.  JONES.  Let  me  get  your  question  a  little  more  definitely. 

Mr.  JAMES.  He  askod  you  about  the  undervaluation  of  imported 
articles  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  say,  if  such  things  exist,  it  is  because  the  officers 
there  in  charge  fail  to  perform  thoir  duty  properly,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  JONES.  ^  es,  in  part;  that  is  so;  but  there  is  a  morbid  deter- 
mined ellort  made  to  cast  suspicion  on  any  importer  of  pottery, 
china,  or  glass,  and  all  the  obstacles  that  it  is' possible  to  imagine  are 
set  up  in  order  to  thwart  the  importation  of  foreign  wares  m  this  line. 
1  do  not  want  to  speak  of  it  in  any  boastful  way,  but  I  have  been  in 
our  firm  for  50  years — boy  and  man — and  we  have  never  been  charged 
with  or  suspected  of  fraud  by  undervaluation. 

[  might  be  arrested  before  I  get  back  to  Boston,  but  I  do  not  think 
so.  Y\e  have  never  been  suspected;  we  have  never  been  charged, 


SCHEDULE   B.  627 

PARAGRAPHS   92-94^-POTTERY. 

and  we  have  often  been  called  in  in  consultation  to  give  our  judgment 
about  the  value  of  imports. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  simply  asked  the  question  to  suggest  that,  if  Mr. 
Payne's  ideas  were  well  founded,  the  officers  were  not  properly  per- 
forming their  duty  there  by  allowing  goods  to  be  smuggled  in  and 
undervalued,  and  perhaps  that  might  be  remedied  after  the  4th  of 
March. 

Mr.  JONES.  Possibly. 

Mr.  HULL.  You  say  there  has  been  a  recent  increase  in  the  ocean 
freight  rates. 

Mr.  JONES.  An  increase  in  the  ocean  freight  rates  ?  The  rates  have 
been  about  doubled  in  several  years. 

Mr.  HULL.  How  much  of  an  increase  was  this  recent  one  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  As  I  remember  it,  it  has  gone  up  to  either  10  or  12 
shillings  per  ton,  cubic  measure. 

Mr.  HULL.  Does  that  apply  to  your  line  of  goods  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  entirely. 

Mr.  HULL.  It  is  different  as  to  different  lines. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  earthenware  is  something  that  can  be  stowed 
anywhere  in  the  hold  of  the  ship.  They  are  not  afraid  of  the  steam 
or  the  smoke  or  the  wet,  and  therefore  it  is  taken  at  a  very  low  rate. 
I  think  it  is  10  or  12  shillings  now,  and  I  think  it  has  more  than 
doubled  what  it  was  several  years  ago  to  Baltimore. 

Mr.  HULL.  This  increase  has  been  uniform,  has  it,  by  all  ship  lines  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  presume  so.  There  are  several  of  those  lines  that 
come  to  Boston,  and  then  there  is  a  line  coming  from  the  north  Ger- 
man ports  to  Boston.  Those  rates  have  been  increased. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  is  the  rate  from  Liverpool  to  Philadelphia, 
if  you  know  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  should  say,  10  shillings,  40  feet.     It  may  be  12. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  For  how  much? 

Mr.  JONES.  For  a  measurement  of  40  cubic  feet. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  How  much  is  it  per  hundred  pounds  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  It  is  never  done  that  way.  I  can  guess.  Take  an 
average  crate  of  ware.  That  will  measure,  say,  50  cubic  feet,  and  at 
10  shillings  a  ton,  that  would  be  a  little  over  $3.  I  think  that  crate 
would  weigh  on  an  average  of  a  thousand  pounds.  That  would  be 
30  cents  a  hundred,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Well,  that  is  rather  beyond  me  for  the  moment. 
It  was  testified  yesterday  that  the  rate  on  English  pottery  from 
Liverpool  to  Philadelphia  was  8  cents  a  hundred. 

Mr.  JONES.  The  man  who  said  that  did  not  know.  That  is 
absurd. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  What  is  the  rate  from  Trenton  to  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  could  not  answer  that.  It  must  be  very  little.  It 
is  only  30  minutes  or  40  minutes  run. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Well,  do  you  deny  that  the  rate  from  Liverpool 
to  Philadelphia  is  less  than  the  rate  from  Trenton  to  Philadelphia  on 
American  pottery  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  Jcnow. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  But  you  just  said  it  was  absurd.  Now,  do  you 
know  that  that  is  a  fact  ? 


628  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know  what  the  rate  is  from  Trenton  to  Phila- 
delphia. That  is  all  I  can  say. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  know  what  the  rate  is  from  Liverpool  to 
St.  Louis  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  has  occasioned  considerable  discussion.  They 
give  a  through  rate  from  Liverpool,  we  will  say,  to  an  interior  point, 
and  that  is  done  because  they  are  sure  of  filling  the  ship,  and  that 
goes  through  under  an  understanding  between  the  all-rail  line  and  the 
sea  carrier.  Now,  I  can  imagine  why  a  railroad  man  should  agree  to 
a  lower  rate  of  freight  on  through  freight  than  he  would  from  a  local 
point,  for  example.  If  those  trainloads  of  grain  came  into  Philadel- 

Ehia  to  be  discharged  for  a  steamer  to  take  it  to  Europe,  they  would 
ave  those  empty  cars  right  on  the  sidings  and  they  could  afford  to 
fill  those  empty  cars  which  had  just  come  in  laden  with  grain,  with 
an  import  line  going  to  the  interior,  at  a  less  rate  than  they  could 
after  having  the  cars  wait  on  the  siding  at  East  Liverpool  or  Trenton. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  that,  and  I  am  not 
trying  to  bring  out  the  question  as  to  whether  the  railroads  have  the 
right  to  do  that  or  not;  but  it  has  been  stated  as  a  fact  that  the  rate 
on  the  Liverpool  or  English  product  to  St.  Louis  is  just  about  half 
of  the  rate  from  Trenton  to  St.  Louis.  You  stated  a  little  while  ago 
that  the  American  potters  had  a  great  advantage  in  the  freight  rate, 
and  I  say  this  testimony  shows  they  have  not  an  advantage,  but  a 
very  great,  most  substantial  disadvantage. 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  you  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  American  potter 
can  ship  in  carload  lots,  without  any  cost  per  package,  as  against  the 
foreign  competitor  having  to  pay  a  large  percentage — 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  convenience  of  the 
package,  but  I  am  directing  my  question  to  the  fact  that  you  stated 
that  the  freight  rate  was  to  the  advantage  of  the  American  potter. 

Mr.  JONES.  Is  it  not  fair  for  you  to  consider  the  carload  feature 
when  you  are  considering  the  question  of  the  cost  ?  I  think  so. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  am  speaking  of  the  freight  rate.  That  was 
your  statement.  Now,  it  was  stated  to  us  two  years  ago — I  do  not 
know  whether  it  was  so  or  not— that  the  rate  from  Liverpool,  England, 
to  points  inland  in  this  country,  say  to  points  in  Iowa,  was  substan- 
tially less  than  the  rates  from  East  Liverpool,  Ohio,  to  those  same 
points.  Is  that  true  or  not? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  know.  I  presume  it  was  then,  but  I  may  add 
that  what  was  true  as  to  through  rates  two  years  ago  is  not  so  now. 
Through  rates  have  nearly  doubled  from  foreign  points  to  our  interior 
points.  In  closing  I  might  say —if  you  have  room  for  it — that  while 
the  word  _"  chin  a"  or  "porcelain"  sounds  as  if  it  were  a  luxury,  a 
large  portion  of  that  \vhich  comes  from  Germany  and  Japan  is  made 
at  so  low  a  cost,  that  they  are  in  a  class  by  themselves,  and  I  might 
say  are  noncompetitive  at  present,  as  the  landed  cost  is  as  low  as 
much  of  the  decorated  opaque  English  earthenware,  and,  therefore, 
should  not  be  regarded  as  in  the  class  of  the  more  luxurious  porcelain 
imported. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  And  in  spite  of  that,  you-say  that  the  American 
potter  had  an  advantage  over  the  English  potter? 


SCHEDULE   B.  629 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  certain  of  it.  You  lose  sight  of  the  carload 
advantage. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  carload  advantage  or 
of  anything  else;  but  when  somebody  tells  me  that  the  rate  from 
Liverpool  to  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  is  less  than  the  rate  from  East  Liver- 
pool, Ohio,  to  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  I  want  to  know  why  it  is.  You 
can  talk  all  you  want  about  carload  lots;  but  it  is  utterly  absurd  to 
say  that  the  English  potters  have  not  an  immense  advantage  under 
those  circumstances.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  another  ques- 
tion. You  stated  the  revenue  is  substantially  increased  if  the  rate 
is  reduced  from  60  to  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  it  would  be  somewhat  increased. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  mean  the  importations  would  be  more  than 
double  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  I  do  not  think  they  would  be  more  than  double. 
I  think  approximately  they  would  be  more. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Well,  they  would  have  to  double,  would  they 
not,  in  order  to  come  out  even  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  on  those  figures. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  ask  you  whether,  in  your  judgment,  they 
would  more  than  double? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  I  do  not  think  they  would. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  the  revenue  would  diminish  instead  of 
increase  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  it  would  hold  good.  I  do  not  say  it  would 
diminish  or  increase. 

Mr^LoNGWORTH.  You  advocated  this  because  you  said  it  would 
increase  the  revenues;  you  advocated  specifically  the  reduction  of 
the  duty  from  60  to  30  per  cent  because  it  would  diminish  the  cost  to 
the  consumer  and  not  diminish  the  revenues? 

Mr.  JONES.  Perhaps  that  would  be  the  working  out  of  it. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  you  just  now  say  that  it  would  not  increase 
the  revenues. 

Mr.  JONES.  Don't  ask  me  something  that  I  can  not  answer. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  But  you  come  here  and  advise  us  to  reduce  the 
duties  one-half  in  order  to  increase  the  revenues? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Have  you  any  idea  as  to  whether  or  not  it  will 
increase  the  revenues? 

Mr.  JONES.  In  my  paper  I  said  it  would  be  substantially  the 
same. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Why  do  you  advise  it?     On  what  ground? 

Mr.  JONES.  On  common  sense  grounds. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Where  is  the  common  sense,  unless  it  will  more 
than  double  the  importations  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  That  has  to  be  left  to  the  future  entirely.  I  am  here 
more  in  the  interest  of  the  retailer  and  those  who  come  in  contact 
with  the  consumer,  and  I  think  the  consumer  has  a  right  to  the  benefit 
of  competition. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  But  you  just  stated  that  there  was  plenty  of 
competition. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  get  your  point. 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 
PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  LONGWOETH.  You  stated  a  while  ago,  in  response  to  some  ques- 
tions that  I  asked  you,  that  there  was  abundant  competition. 

Mr.  JONES.  There  is. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Exactly. 

Mr.  JONES.  But  we  want  more. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  want  more;  you  want  to  more  than  double 
the  imports,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  No;  I  would  be  satisfied  if  the  revenue  was  substan- 
tially the  same  under  30  and  35  per  cent  as  against  55  and  60. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then,  I  will  ask  you  again — and  this  is  a  simple 
mathematical  proposition — that,  in  order  to  make  the  revenues  the 
same,  if  you  reduce  the  duty  one-half,  you  will  have  to  double  the 
imports,  will  you  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Logically;  yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Not  logically,  but  absolutely. 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  have  it  your  way. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  hardly  know  how  to  ask  you  a  question, 
because  you — 

Mr.  JONES.  You  ask  me  impossibilities.  When  you  nail  me  down 
to  exact  figures,  I  can  not  answer,  and  nobody  can. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  come  before  this  committee  as  an  expert, 
and  you  state  that  you  appear  in  your  own  interest  and  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  ultimate  consumer,  and  you  want  to  increase  the  revenue. 
You  specifically  advocate  that  the  duties  be  fixed  at  certain  figures, 
on  the  ground  that  it  will  increase  competition  and  increase  the 
revenue,  and  I  ask  you  a  perfectly  simple  question  as  to  whether 
the  reduction  of  the  duty  one-half  will  double  the  importations,  and 
you  say  you  do  not  know. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Then  I  do  not  want  to  ask  you  any  more  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  understand  that  within  the  last  lew  weeks  you 
have  increased  the  price  of  your  articles  about,  say,  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  approximately  10,  not  fully. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Between  5  and  10,  and  that  was  on  account  of  the 
sea  freight  having  been  advanced,  you  say? 

Mr.  JONES.  Xo;  the  foreign  cost  is  more. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  the  American  pottery  makers  increased  their 
prices  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  They  have. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Was  it  on  account  of  the  increase  in  the  foreign 
article  > 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  it  was  their  opportunity  to  get  more,  and,  as 
customers,  we  agreed  to  it  and  gave  them  orders. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  When  the  foreign  price  goes  up,  do  the  American 
potters  take  advantage  of  that  price  and  put  their  price  up  instead 
of  coining  in  competition  with  them  and  holding  the  foreign  prices 
down '( 

Mr.  JONES.  They  want  all  that  is  coining  to  them. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  When  the  foreign  price  goes  up,  the  American  price 
of  pottery  goes  up  too,  does  it  not  2 

Mr.  JONES.    1  beg  your  pardon. 


SCHEDULE   B.  681 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  say,  when  the  foreign  price  goes  up  for  any  cause, 
whether  due  to  sea  freights  or  for  any  other  cause,  the  American  man- 
ufacturer of  pottery  puts  up  his  price,  too,  does  he  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  do  not  accuse  them  of  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  No;  you  do  not  accuse  them;  but  they  do  it,  do  they 
not? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  would  if  I  were  in  their  place. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  believe  you  stated  awhile  ago  that  they  advanced 
their  price  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  They  have.     You  are  right. 

Mr.  JAMES.  All  of  that  followed  the  advance  in  the  foreign  price  of 
10  per  cent? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Then  it  is  a  matter  of  conjecture  whether  or  not  that 
was  the  cause  of  it  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  This  is  not  the  first  case  that  that  has  taken  place  in. 
They  advanced  their  prices  as  the  foreign  price  was  advanced  a  couple 
of  weeks  ago,  did  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ?  That  is  all,  Mr 
Jones. 

STATEMENT  OF  FRANK  H.  HUTCHINS,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 
BROTHERHOOD  OF  POTTERS. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  work- 
ingmen  who  are  employed  in  making  whiteware,  In  this  tariff  on 
pottery  ware  there  seems  to  be  a  great  deal  of  confusion.  It  is 
applied  to  all  classes.  We  have  to  compete  with  the  foreign  work- 
men. In  England  the  wages  are  100  per  cent  lower  than  hi  this 
country.  In  German}'  they  are  20  per  cent  lower  than  in  England. 
In  France  and  Holland  they  are  30  per  cent  lower  than  in  England. 
In  Japan  they  are  about  45  per  cent  lower  than  in  England. 

The  tariff  schedule  as  the  percentage  of  protection  is  based  on  pos- 
sibly what  England  pays,  and  the  result  is  these  other  countries  have 
taken  the  place  of  England  as  the  greatest  importer  of  goods  into 
America,  and  some  of  the  English  manufacturers  have  found  it  to 
their  advantage  to  go  over  to  Germany  to  establish  factories  and  have 
their  wares  made  there.  The  German  manufacturers  import  their 
ware  into  England  and  undersell  the  English  manufacturers  in  their 
own  market.  You  would  think  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  Eng- 
land to  continue  in  the  pottery  business,  but  the  only  salvation  for 
England  is  its  colonies. 

The  condition  of  the  pottery  worker  in  England  is  awful.  It  is 
more  like  the  conditions  that  exist  among  the  mill  employees  in  Law- 
rence, Mass.,  than  anything  I  know  of .  People  are  in  misery,  want, 
and  next  door  to  starvation.  They  take  their  clothes  and  furniture 
to  the  pawnshops  and  pawn  them  to  get  enough  to  maintain  body 
and  soul  together  until  they  can  get  a  little  work  to  do. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  you  seen  the  conditions  of  Lawrence,  Mass.  ? 

Mi1.  HUTCHINS.  Xo;  I  say  from  what  I  have  read. 


632  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  From  the  hearing  that  was  before  the  committee  ? 
Mr.  HUTCHINS.  .From  the  hearing  that  was  before  the  committee; 

yes. 

Now,  gentlemen,  our  experience  has  been  in  1894  that  a  reduction 
in  the  tariff  affected  the  men  employed  in  this  industry.  We  went 
on  strike  at  that  time  against  a  reduction.  We  believed  that  the 
manufacturers  were  making  fortunes,  and  we  struck  six  months,  and 
finally  submitted  to  a  12£  per  cent  reduction,  and  not  one-half  of  the 
potters  worked  during  the  continuation  of  the  tariff  schedule.  When 
it  was  restored,  in  1897,  the  wages  were  immediately  raised  by  the 
manufacturers  the  12£  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Why  does  not  the  tariff  have  that  effect  upon  the 
laborers  in  Lawrence,  Mass.  ?  They  are  working  in  a  highly  pro- 
tected industry — over  100  per  cent. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  can  not  answer  that,  but  any  industry 

Mr.  JAMES  (interposing).  They  are  protected  over  100  per  cent; 
yet  you  liken  their  condition  to  the  condition  of  the  potters  in 
England. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  In  England. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Which  is  true,  and  they  under  free  trade. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Under  free  trade;  yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  would  like  to  have  you  tell  us  how  it  is  that  this 
highly  protected  industry  has  such  poorly  paid  labor  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  In  England  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  No,  in  Lawrence,  Mass.,  if  the  tariff  is  the  thing  that 
causes  good  wages. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Well,  now,  I  was  just  going  to  explain  to  you  that 
there  is  not  any  industry  on  the  face  of  the  earth — now  I  am  saying 
that — on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  I  believe  gives  a  larger  portion  of 
the  receipts  from  the  manufacture  of  its  goods  than  the  pottery 
manufacturers  do. 

Mr.  PALMER.  To  which  portion  of  the  laborers  do  you  refer? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  The  labor,  the  men  who  make  the  ware,  and  the 
skilled  mechanics. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So  in  some  cases  these  protected  industries  divide  up, 
and  in  other  cases  they  do  not? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Yes,  sir;  and  we  have  come  before  you  to-day, 
believing  that  the  President-elect  Wilson  said  that  industries  of  this 
kind  have  nothing  to  fear,  honest  industries,  industries  that  put  a 
fair  portion  of  the  profits  into  the  envelopes  of  the  wage  earners,  and 
we  know  from  past  experience  that  there  can  be  no  retrenchment 
in  the  cost  of  manufacturing  pottery  ware  except  that  it  comes  out  of 
the  wa.ue  earners. 

Mr.  JAMES  1  on  spoke  of  Germany.  Is  there  any  protective  tariff 
on  manufacturers  of  pottery  in  Germany? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

We  are  not  competent  to  talk  on  tariff  schedules,  as  they  pertain 
in  foreign  countries,  but  in  our  dealings  with  the  manufacturers  we 
meet  every  two  years  in  conference,  and  in  an  effort  to  regulate 
wages  and  conditions  of  work,  and  we  try  to  get  an  increase  in 
wa<res. 


SCHEDULE   B.  633 

PARAGRAPHS  92^94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Did  you  not  speak  about  the  sale  of  pottery  manu- 
factures in  Germany  and  England? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Yes.     We  will  come  to  that. 

And  in  our  efforts  to  get  an  increase  in  wages,  we  have  got  to  con- 
sider the  cost  of  production  of  other  countries,  where  the  ware  is 
imported  into  this  country  in  competition  with  the  home-made  ware. 
Naturally,  we  can  not  go  beyond  a  certain  figure.  We  have  found 
from  these  investigations  that  the  wages  are  just  as  we  state. 

In  the  last  two  years  at  least  250  foreigners  from  Germany,  Hol- 
land, Snglan(l,  and  some  few  other  foreign  countries  have  come  to 
this  country  and  engaged  in  the  pottery  business.  They  are  members 
of  our  organization. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  250  potters.  And  they  engage  hi  the  pottery  busi- 
ness; workingmen.  They  substantiate  what  we  have  ascertained  by 
investigation. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  manufacturers  are  so  liberal  with  the 
workingmen,  we  feel  that  they  can  not  afford  to  submit  to  any 
reduction. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  do  they  pay  you  a  day — the  ordinary  worker  in 
this  business  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  The  pottery  business  is  all  piecework. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  the  workers  in  the  pottery  business  belong  to  the 
union  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  They  belong  to  the  union. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  consider  your  high  wages  due  to  the  tariff  or 
to  your  organization  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  consider  them  due  to  the  tariff. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  not  to  the  organization  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHIXS.  Xot  to  the  organization.  In  spite  of  our  organ- 
ization, in  1894,  we  submitted  to  a  12^  per  cent  reduction. 

Mr.  JAMES.  This  is  piecework,  you  say  ?  That  is  the  character  of 
work  they  do  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Yes;  this  is  all  piecework. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  ordinary  laborer  able  to  make  per  day  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS,  Well,  of  course,  on  different  classes  of  work  it 
varies,  but  the  average  wage  of  every  employee  in  the  pottery  works, 
girls,  boys,  men,  and  everything,  is  about  $15  a  week.  The  girls  in 
this  country  receive  as  much  wages  as  the  men  employed  in  the  old 
country.  That  is,  the  girls  employed  in  this  country  do  the  work 
which  they  follow  and  receive  as  much  wages  as  the  men  employed 
in  the  old  country  doing  the  same  class  of  work  that  the  men  do  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  old  are  the  boys  that  work  there  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Where  ?     In  the  old  country  1 

Mr.  JAMES.  Xo;  here. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Here?     Not  under  14  in  any  State. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  say  they  make  as  much  as  $15  a  week? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  say  that  is  the  average  wage  of  all  the  employees, 
the  skilled  mechanic  and  all.  The  skilled  mechanic  makes  $20  and 
$25  a  week. 


634  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  times  since  1897  has  your  organization 
got  together  and  asked  the  pottery  manufacturers  for  an  increase  of 
wages? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Every  two  years  we  have  a  conference. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  how  many  times  have  you  got  your  increase 
since  1897  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Why,  there  has  not  been  any  increase  in  the  piece 
price,  or  the  price  per  dozen  since  the  restoration  of  the  \1\  per  cent 
that  was  taken  off,  due  to  the  tariff  reduction  in  1894. 

The  men  have  been  enabled  to  make  better  wages  by  the  kuilding 
of  more  modern  plants  or  the  introduction  of  better  machinery  and 
greater  efficiency,  and  the  men  have  been  given  the  benefit  of  that, 
and  not  only  that,  but  the  general  public  have  benefited  by  that  to 
the  extent  that  the  ware  is  being  sold  cheaper  to-day  .than  it  was 
before  then. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So  that  7  or  8  or  10  years  ago  you  were  making  $15  a 
week  on  an  average,  the  average  laborer  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  The  average  laborer. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  does  that  compare  with  the  price  of  living  ?  Has 
not  that  increased  greatly  since  then  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Yes;  the  price  of  living  has  increased. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yet  the  wages  have  stood  still  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  No.  I  was  just  saying  that  the  skilled  mechanic, 
you  understand— 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  you  were  talking  about  the  wages  of  the  average 
laborer.  You  said  they  had  not  been  increased  since  they  got  the 
12i  per  cent  reduction  that  was  taken  off  on  account  of  the  Wilson 
tariff  law,  and  that  was  restored,  and  since  that  time  it  has  remained 
the  same.  Then  I  asked  you  how  that  compared  with  the  price  of 
living  since  then.  Do  you  find  that  your  wages  buy  as  much  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Our  wages  have  not  increased  with  the  cost  of 
Jiving;  they  have  not  kept  pace  with  the  cost  of  living. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  have  stood  still?  So  you  are  not  getting  as 
much,  then,  so  far  as  being  able  to  save  something,  as  you  got  several 
years  ago,  are  you  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Why,  yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Why,  wo  are  having  steadier  employment. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  did  not  have  steady  employment  before? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  We  did  not  have  the  steady  employment  for  a 
long  time  after  the  restoration  of  the  12i  per  cent  duty.  It  took  the 
potters  some  time  to  regain  thoir  lost  trade,  and  it  was  a  gradual 
increase,  and  it  was  a  gradual  resumption  of  steady  employment,  and 
of  course  while  that  was  taking  place  the  increased  cost  of  living  came 
along. 

Mr.  JAMES.  1  thought  you  stated  just  before  the  tariff  was  reduced 
you  got  $15  a  week. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  No,  I  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  was  your  pay  then? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Why,  I  do  not  know.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to 
say.  1  was  not  connected  with  the  organization  at  that  tune. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Well,  were  you  a  laborer  there? 

Mr.  Ih  T<  in. vs.   Yes,  sir;  1  was  a  laborer. 


SCHEDULE   B.  635 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  work  there  now? 

Mr.  HUTCIIINS.  I  do  not  work  in  the  factory  now. 
.  Mr.  JAMES.  What  do  you  do  ? 

Mr.  HUTCIIINS.  1  am  an  odicor  of  their  labor  organization. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  do  not  do  any  of  the  actual  labor  at  all? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Not  now;  no. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  you  were  not  familiar  with  it,  then,  before  the 
Wilson  bill  was  passed  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  working  at  the  trade  then. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  did  they  get  on  an  average  per  week  then  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  was  not  hi  a  position  to  know.  I  can  tell  you 
what  I  earned. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Well,  I  wanted  the  average. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  know.  The  pottery 
trade  was  not  organized  along  the  same  lines  as  it  is  now  in  those  days. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right;  you  are  excused. 

BRIEF  OF  NATIONAL  BROTHERHOOD  OF  OPERATIVE  POTTERS. 

The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  your  committee  is  meeting  at  this  time  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  wisdom  of  revising  the  tariff  schedules  on  pottery, 
and  mindful  of  the  further  fact  that  such  revision  if  it  be  downward,  judging  from  past 
experience,  would  undoubtedly  prove  a  serious  blow  and  setback  to  the  American 
pottery  industry,  we  herewith  submit  for  your  information  and  careful  thought  a  few 
facts  which  we  trust  may  be  of  some  meager  assistance  to  you  in  reaching  a  fair  and 
equitable  conclusion. 

Should  the  present  tariff  schedules  on  pottery  be  cut  so  as  to  require  a  reduction  in 
the  present  selling  price  of  the  American  pottery  manufacturers'  goods,  we  have 
been  given  assurance  by  no  less  an  authority  than  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells  himself,  an  official 
of  and  spokesman  for  the  United  States  rotters'  Association,  that  there  must  and 
inevitably  will  follow  a  reduction  in  the  wages  of  the  employees  of  such  industry,  in 
proportion  to  and  as  a  consequence  of  such  tariff  revision. 

In  confirmation  of  the  foregoing  statement,  we  herewith  submit,  in  part,  Mr.  Wells'e 
public  declarations  to  the  press: 

"If  the  rate  of  duty  on  pottery  is  reduced  it  will  mean  that  the  selling  price  must  be 
reduced.  The  owners  will  not,  and  can  not,  sell  their  output  on  a  closer  margin  than 
they  are  doing  to-day,  and  if  they  must  reduce  prices  they  must  either  close  their 
plants  or  reduce  wages.  Just  as  surely  as  the  workmen  are  getting  every  dollar  of  the 
protection  to-day,  they  will  have  to  stand  every  dollar  of  any  reduction  made.  This 
is  no  threat  nor  bluff,  but  is  the  deliberate  statement  of  one  who  knows  precisely  what 
he  is  talking  about.  This  result  occurred  in  1894,  and  there  is  more  reason  for  it  now 
than  there  was  at  that  time. 

"At  present,  one-half  of  the  pottery  used  in  this  country  is  made  abroad,  which  is 
fairly  good  evidence  that  the  protective  tariff  has  not  made  a  monopoly  in  this  par- 
ticular line.  We  are  fighting  with  the  importer  every  day  to  hold  our  ground,  and 
still  pay  American  wages.  The  owner  can  not  take  another  dollar  put  of  his  pocket  to 
hold  his  present  proportion  of  the  business,  and  it  will  bear  repeating,  that  if  the  new 
administration  should  invite  pottery  to  this  country  at  a  lower  price,  that  difference 
will  have  to  be  met  right  out  of  the  workingman's  pocket." 

It  will  be  remembered ,  perhaps,  by  the  older  members  of  your  committee,  that  when 
the  Wilson  bill  was  enacted  into  law,  back  in  1894,  materially  reducing  the  tariff  and 
thereby  inviting  greater  foreign  competition,  many  of  the  potteries  closed  down 
entirely  and  few,  if  any  of  them,  were  operated  much  better  than  half  time.  The 
employees  were  not  only  forced  against  their  wishes  to  accept  irregular  employment, 
but  were  obliged  as  well  to  work  at  a  12£  per  cent  reduction.  These  conditions, 
too,  obtained  throughout  the  life  of  the  Wilson  law. 

Following  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  law  in  1897,  which  materially  increased 
the  tariff,  the  trade  of  the  domestic  pottery  manufacturer  in  a  comparatively  short 
time  assumed  a  more  normal  and  prosperous  condition,  steadier  work  was  furnished 


636  TAETPP  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92^94— POTTERY. 

thrt  employees,  and  the  wage  scale  which  prevailed  prior  to  the  12^  per  cent  reduction 
was  restored.  No  attempt  has  since  been  made  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  Potters 
Association  to  reduce  wages.  On  the  contrary,  in  many  branches  of  the  industry  mate- 
rial wage  increases  have  been  conceded  to  the  workmen,  which,  in  effect,  have  enabled 
them  to  surround  themselves  with  more  of  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life. 

In  view  of  the  expressed  declarations  of  the  United  States  Potters  Association  as  to 
what  the  workmen  may  expect  should  the  present  tariff  schedules  be  lowered,  and  in 
view  of  what  actually  did  happen  between  the  years  1894  and  1897,  when  the  schedules 
were  lowered,  we  say  to  you  frankly,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  and  with  the 
utmost  sincerity,  that  if  the  present  schedules  are  reduced  and  the  growth  of  the 
pottery  industry  is  impaired  or  retarded,  or  if  the  wages  of  our  men  are  jeopardized  or 
lowered,  we  should  consider  it  an  act  of  retrogression — a  step  backward. 

As  prosperous  as  the  country  now  is,  and  as  considerate  as  our  employers  have  been 
on  questions  affecting  wages,  our  men  to-day,  with  all  of  these  things  in  their  favor, 
have  an  exceedingly  difficult  mathematical  problem  on  their  hands  to  meet  the  every- 
day obligations  of  life.  They  assuredly  do  not  want  to  take  a  step  backward,  and 
believing,  as  they  do,  that  if  the  present  schedules  are  lowered  it  unquestionably  means 
a  step  backward,  we,  as  their  representatives,  do  urge  upon  you,  Mr,  Chairman  and 
gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  the  present  schedules  on  pottery  be  not  disturbed. 

FRANK  H.  HUTCHTNS, 
MICHAEL  KENNEDY' 
EDWIN  JAMES  WHITEHEAD, 
SAMUEL  B.  BURGESS, 
WILL  T.  BLAKE, 
Representatives  of  National  Brotherhood  of  Operative  Potters. 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  E.  WELLS,  EAST  LIVERPOOL,  OHIO. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to  avoid  any  misunderstand- 
ing as  to  precisely  the  class  of  goods  that  Mr.  Burgess  and  I  repre- 
sent, I  want  to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  we  know  nothing  of  the 
goods  covered  by  paragraph  92.  Our  people  do  not  make  that  class 
of  goods.  We  know  nothing  officially  of  them,  as  to  the  home  con- 
sumption, as  to  the  importations,  or  as  to  the  exportations.  Those 
goods  are  the  old  milk  crocks  that  are  gray. 

The  yellow  wares,  old  brown  or  Rockingham  teapots,  a  very  few 
Rockingham  teapots,  and  things  of  that  sort,  and  yellow  dishes  are 
made  by  some  of  the  potteries  that  also  make  our  class  of  goods,  but 
they  are  very  unimportant.  The  thing  we  are  talking  about  here, 
and  the  thing  we  are  representing,  is  the  white  tableware,  either 
plain  or  plain  white,  overlaid  with  a  decoration  like  that  [indicating], 
the  dishes  that  everybody  uses  every  day  on  the  table.  In  that  line 
we  manufacture  in  this  country  somewhere  between  $15,000,000  and 
816,000,000  per  year.  The  importations,  I  believe,  are  in  the 
neighborhood  of  $10,000,000,  foreign  value.  To  get  the  competing 
value  it  is  obviously  correct  that  you  should  designate  the  laid-down 
price  of  those  foreign  goods  at  the  American  ports.  That  means  the 
addition  to  the  foreign  value  of  the  duty  and  the  freight  laid  down 
to  our  ports.  We  can  not  say  precisely  what  that  competing  value 

,  but  I  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Burgess's  estimate  is  far  wrong;  that, 
m  competing  values,  we  make  from  fifteen  to  sixteen  million  dollars' 
worth  of  dishes— earthenware  and  china — in  this  country  a  year, 
and  the  competing  value  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  twenty-two 
million;  so  that  the  foreigner  has  now,  as  he  always  has  had,  the 
better  part,  the  larger  part,  of  the  American  market. 

The  subject  is  so  complicated  and  there  are  so  many  technicalities 
in  it  that  it  is  almost  impossible  in  the  time  allotted  to  anyone  to 
explain  all  those  things  to  the  committee  so  that  the  committee 


SCHEDULE  B.  637 

PARAGRAPHS  92~94— POTTERY. 

might  grasp  all  of  these  things  and  the  significance  of  all  the  details. 
However,  if  the  facts  are  wanted,  there  is  only  one  way  to  get  them, 
and  that  is  to  have  some  one  authorized  by  this  committee  to  make 
a  thorough  investigation  right  at  first  sources,  and  it  is  in  connection 
with  such  an  investigation  that  I  have  drawn  this  brief  that  I  desire 
to  read. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wells,  do  you  cover  the  same  subject  matter 
as  Mr.  Burgess  did?  We  allowed  Mr.  Burgess  to  run  considerably 
over  his  time.  Although  the  committee  wants  to  get  a  full  statement, 
we  think  we  understand  that  very  well.  I  do  not  want  to  cut  you  off, 
but  if  that  brief  covers  the  same  subject,  I  would  be  glad  to  have  you 
file  it,  and  the  committee  will  give  it  careful  consideration. 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  Mr.  Chairman;  it  is  not  exactly  the  same,  and 
with  your  permission  I  would  like  to  read  it,  abbreviating  it  as  much 
as  possible. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right;  proceed. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Almost  80  per  cent  of  all  the  earthenware  dishes  pro- 
duced in  the  United  States  are  made  in  the  eighteenth  congressional 
district  of  Ohio  and  the  territory  immediately  surrounding  it. 

Hon.  J.  J.  Whitacre,  Representative  in  Congress  from  that  district, 
recently  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  many  of  his  manufacturing  con- 
stituents, including  the  potters,  a  complete  copy  of  which  is  attached 
to  this  brief  but  which  will  not  be  read  by  me. 

After  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee will  grant  hearings  to  those  desiring  to  be  heard,  he  says,  in 
the  second  paragraph: 

Personally  I  do  not  know  whether  the  present  rates  on  your  products  are  too  high 
or  not.  I  would  favor  a  proposition  from  you  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to 
throw  open  your  books  and  factories  to  the  experts  selected  by  the  committee  to  ascer- 
tain the  exact  conditions  that  obtain  in  your  industry  as  regards  all  matters  which 
enter  into  your  cost. 

The  Pottery,  Glass,  and  Brass  Salesman,  a  journal  of  the  pottery 
and  glass  trades,  published  in  New  York,  in  commenting  upon  this 
letter  in  the  issue  of  December  26,  1912,  says: 

Representative  Whitacre  consulted  with  members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee before  framing  his  address  to  the  manufacturers,  then  laid  it  before  a  caucus 
of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Ohio  delegation. 

Now.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  newspaper  story  was  correct, 
and  I  asked  Representative  Whitacre  this  morning.  He  said  he  did 
lay  this  letter  and  his  proposition  before  the  members  of  the  Ohio 
delegation,  but  he  did  not  submit  it  to  the  members  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee. 

I  will  now  continue  with  my  statement. 

Obviously,  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether  this  newspaper 
statement  is  correct  that  some  members  of  your  committee  were 
cognizant  of  the  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Whitacre,  nor  do  I  know 
whether  it  has  your  approval,  but  believing  we  all  agree  that  whatever 
action  you  may  take  in  adjusting  the  rate  of  duty  upon  pottery 
should  be  based  upon  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  exact  facts,  I 
desire  now  to  extend  to  you  an  urgent  invitation,  upon  behalf  of  the 
American  potters,  to  do  the  precise  thin«:  suggested  by  Mr.  Whitacre. 

We  will  cheerfully  throw  our  factories  and  our  hooks  open  to 
examination  by  any  expert  or  any  commission  that  you  may  designate 


638  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

for  that  purpose,  and  we  will  dilligently  and  without  reservation 
assist  in  developing  every  fact  and  all  statistics  that  may  have  any 
bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue. 

As  the  result  of  having  sent  an  expert  representative  abroad  fre- 
quently during  recent  years  to  study  competitive  conditions  in 
Europe,  and  from  systematic  work  in  gathering  together  the  essential 
facts  concerning  home  production,  we  have  an  accumulation  of 
accurate  data  covering  every  phase  of  the  industry,  more  complete 
perhaps  than  the  information  available  concerning  any  other  in- 
dustry that  will  come  before  you  for  consideration.  Everything  we 
have  will  be  cheerfully  submitted  to  your  representatives. 

Should  you  determine  to  make  this  investigation  and  the  results 
should  not  convince  any  impartial  individual  or  commission  of  the 
following  facts,  then  we  will  surrender  our  case  and  willingly  accept 
any  rate  of  duty  the  wisdom  of  Congress  may  impose  upon  pottery. 

1.  That  there  is  more  money  spent  every  year  by  the  American 
"ultimate  consumer"  for  pottery  made  abroad  than  for  pottery  made 
at  home. 

2.  That  the  full  equivalent  of  all  the  protection  American  pottery 
has  ever  enjoyed  has  gone  into  the  pay  envelope  of  the  workmen 
and  has  not  stuck  in  the  office. 

3.  That  the  average  wages  paid  to  American  pottery  workpeople 
is  more  than  100  per  cent  greater  than  the  average  wages  paid  in 
competing  factories  abroad. 

4.  That  the  average  wages  paid  American  pottery  workpeople  are 
at  least  as  good  as  those  paid  in  any  other  industry  of  equal  impor- 
tance in  this  or  any  other  country. 

5.  That  the  profits  of  the  American  pottery  industry  at  large  for 
the  last  three  years  did  not  exceed  6§  per  cent  upon  the  actual 
capital  invested. 

6.  That  the  profits  to  the  manufacturer,  of  the  importer,  of  the 
wholesaler,  and  the  retailer  are  greater  upon  imported  than  upon 
domestic  pottery. 

7.  That  any  reduction  in  selling  price  of  American  pottery  result- 
ing from  a  tariff  reduction  must   be  followed  by  a  corresponding 
reduction  of  wages  if  our  potteries  are  to  continue  in  business. 

8.  That  the  quality  has  steadily  improved  and  the  cost  to  the 
ultimate  consumer  has  steadily  decreased  during  the  growth  of  the 
American  industry,  retail  prices  being  now  materially  lower  than 
under  the  Wilson  bill. 

9.  That  the  American  pottery  manufacturer  holds  no  monopoly 
upon  any  part  of  the  trade,  but  through  difference  in  labor  cost  the 
foreign  manufacturer  holds  a  practical  monopoly  upon  the  market 
for  high-class  rhina.. 

Obviously,  1  can  not  prove  all  these  assertions  within  the  time 
allotted,  but,  acting  upon  another  suggestion  embodied  in  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Whitacre,  which  extract  I  quote  below,  I  desire  to  submit  a 
sworn  statement  covering  certain  vital  facts. 

The  following  is  the  extract  from  Mr.  Whitacre's  letter:  . 

It"  you  are  coming  to  Washington  to  ask  any  rate  as  necessary  to  your  industry  you 
should  at  least  now  come  to  a  showing  of  exact  facts,  free  from  general  denunciation  and 
claptrap  statements.  This  is  a  time  when  sound  horse  sense  should  be  applied  and 
wild  statement  discarded. 


SCHEDULE    B.  639 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Following  that  suggestion  within  the  past  week  sworn  statements 
have  been  given  to  me  by  21  pottery  firms,  with  the  exception  of  1 
small  concern,  which  include  every  firm  in  actual  operation  in  the  Ohio 
Valley,  between  East  Liverpool,  Ohio,  and  Wheeling,  W.  Va.  •  These 
represent  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  this  country 
in  earthenware. 

The  sworn  statements  set  forth: 

First.  The  actual  capital  invested. 

Second.  The  actual  "sales,  separately,  for  each  of  the  three  years, 
1909,  1910,  1911. 

Third.  The  actual  profits  or  losses,  in  dollars  and  cents,  for  each  of 
these  three  years. 

Now,  while  I  shall  not  expose  for  publication  the  intimate  facts 
shown  by  these  individual  statements,  I  have  attached  to  this  brief 
a  sworn  statement  of  my  own,  showing  the  aggregate  facts  for  these 
21  factories;  and,  further,  I  stand  ready  to  submit  and  have  here  the 
individual  statements  to  any  person  the  chairman  of  this  committee 
might  care  to  designate  for  that  purpose.  I  showed  a  part  of  them  to 
Mr.  Whitacre  this  morning,  but  it  would  not  be  fair  to  publish  these 
individual  things,  unless  you  gentlemen  care  to  make  that  suggestion. 
I  have  a  list  in  the  brief  of  the  21  pottery  firms,  from  which  I  have 
these  figures,  but  which  I  will  not  read. 

This  tabulation  shows  the  following  facts:  That  the  total  capital 
invested  was  $6,521,000.  The  total  profits  of  17  firms  in  1909  were 
S46 1,452. 62.  Four  of  the  firms  lost  money  that  year  amounting  to 
$33,883,  leaving  the  net  profits  that  year  $427,569.  In  1910  the  net 
profit  was  $523,107.41.  In  1911  the  net  profit  was  $356,977.48.  I 
did  not  get  the  figures  for  1912,  because  a  lot  of  these  people  had  not 
completed  their  inventories  for  1912  yet  last  week. 

In  percentage  these  profits  show  as  follows:  In  1909,  6.5  per  cent; 
in  1910,  8  per  cent;  and  in  1911,  5.5  per  cent;  a  total  for  the  three 
years  of  20  per  cent  almost  precisely,  an  average  per  year  of  6§  per 
cent. 

Now,  I  respectfully  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  tjiat  these  figures  should 
be  taken  into  account  in  considering  a  pottery  tariff,  ana  should  any 
doubt  exist  as  to  their  fairly  representing  conditions  in  the  pottery 
trade,  then  the  facts  should  be  investigated  at  first  sources  by  your 
own  representative. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  say  to  you,  Mr.  Wells,  that  the  Treasury 
statistics  as  to  these  paragraphs  that  we  are  talking  about  seem  to 
sustain  your  position,  that  your  industry  is  a  highly  competitive  one. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  main  point  that  we  want  to  know.  I 
do  not  care  to  speak  for  anyone  but  myself;  but  if  the  other  members 
of  the  committee  desire  to  accept  vour  offer  or  if  there  is  anything  in 
the  minds  of  the  committee  that  they  may  want  to  bring  out  we  will 
take  advantage  of  your  offer. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Thank  you,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  far  as  the  chairman  is  concerned  the  Treasury 
reports  seem  to  sustain  what  your  statements  show  in  reference  to 
that. 

We  are  most  anxious  that  you  should  get  the  truth  about  our  in- 
dustry in  all  its  details. 


640  TARTFJ   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  With  reference  to  this  $6,521,000  capital  invested 
in  your  business,  is  that  represented  by  your  stock,  or  does  that  rep- 
resent more  than  the  stock  issued  by  your  companies  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  That  sum  represents  the  actual  cost  value  in  dollars 
and  cents. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  stock  is  outstanding  for  that  $6,521,000  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  have  not  the  least  idea,  because  I  did  not  ask  these 
people  to  give  me  the  amount  of  their  capital  stock.  I  asked  them 
only  for  the  capital  invested  in  dollars  and  cents. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  wish  you  would  find  that  out  and  let  us  have  it,  if 
you  can.  I  would  like  to  know  how  much  stock  is  out  to  represent 
that  $6,521,000. 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  I  am  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  it  is  less  than 
$6,500,000,  because  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  pottery  concern  in  the 
Ohio  Valley,  not  one,  that  is  capitalized  at  more  than  its  actual 
investment.  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  penny  of  water  in  an^  pottery 
firm  in  the  Ohio  Valley. 

Mr.  HILL.  Mr.  Wells,  I  am  greatly  interested  in  the  expression  you 
have  made  in  regard  to  an  examination  of  your  industry."  Do  you 
know  of  any  other  industry  in  the  United  States  that  is  not  willing  to 
submit  the  facts  under  the  same  conditions,  and  to  base  the  duty  which 
they  have  asked  for  on  the  actual  facts  hi  the  case? 

Mr.  WELLS.  The  representatives  of  many  industries,  Mr.  Hill,  have 
bold  me  they  would  be  glad  to  do  it  that  way. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  it  is  your  judgment  that  every  industry  in  the 
United  States  would  be  willing  to  have  the  same  treatment  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  There  may  be  a  few  exceptions,  but  they  ought  to  be 
forced  to  accept  those  conditions. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  agree  with  you  most  heartily.  This  duty  was  about 
60  per  cent  under  the  Dingley  law  and  under  the  Payne  law,  and 
you  would  ask  for  its  continuance? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  understand  the  gentleman  who  represents  the  district 
in  which  those  factories  arc  located  also  asks  for  a  continuance. 

Mr.  WELLS.  He  suggested  to  the  potters  that  we  invite  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  to  make  an  examination. 

Mr.  HILL.  Very  well.  Every  industry  in  the  United  States  asks 
the  same  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  American  Congress? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yos. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  he  asks  for  that  treatment,  does  he  not? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir;  ho  does  not,  but  he  indorsed  what  I  stated  — 

Mr.  I  TILL.  Did  ho  vote  for  that  policy  in  this  Congress? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Mr.  Wliif.-ikor,  T  think,  is  here,  and  he  had  better 
answor  (lint  question. 

Mr.  HILT..  Yory  well.  It  is  an  important  matter,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  I  have  tlio  riu'ht  to  ask  for  this  information.  Did  he  not  vote 
for  tho  Democratic  froo-list  bill,  putting  five  billions  of  other  manu- 
factured products  on  the  free  list? 

Mr.  SHACKLEFOHD.  T  would  liko  to  ask  the  witness  here  if  he 
knows. 

Mr.  HILL.    I  want  to  know 

Mr.  WELLS.  Tho  records  of  Congress  will  show  that. 


SCHEDULE   B.  641 

PARAGRAPHS  92~94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  HILL  (continuing).  Whether  your  Member  here  voted  protec- 
tion for  this  industry  because  it  is  located  in  a  district  which  is  now 
represented  by  those  who  are  in  favor  of  a  protective  policy. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  think  that  brings  up  the  Bull  Moose  convention. 

Mr.  HILL.  Very  well. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Is  it  any  part  of  your  mission  here  to  make 
political  capital  for  or  against  any  political  party  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Absolutely  such  a  thing  never  suggested  itself  to  me. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Has  it  been  suggested  to  you— 

Mr.  HILL.  I  will  yield  hi  a  moment,  Mr.  Shackleford. 

I  would  like  to  know  whether,  in  your  judgment,  Mr.  Wells,  the 
pottery  industry  is  entitled  to  any  different  treatment  before  Congress 
from  that  of  other  respectable  and  legal  industries  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  would  not  be  a  loyal  American  citizen  if  I  did  not 
think  they  should  all  be  treated  alike. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  not  your  pottery  industry,  which  I  am  heartily  in 
favor  of  protecting,  an  industry  that  is  sustained  to-day  by  the  prop 
of  a  tax? 

Mr.  WELLS.  You  mean  by  that,  of  course,  protection? 

Mr.  HILL.  That  it  could  not  exist  without  a  tax? 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  could  not  exist  unless  our  workmen  were  placed  in 
the  condition  of  competitive  workmen  in  Europe,  which  is  a  condition 
of  squalor  and  want. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  stated  a  moment  ago  that  you  had  made  a 
careful  investigation  of  the  potterv  industry  abroad.  I  want  to  ask 
you  whether  your  labor  is  more  efficient  than  labor  is  abroad  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Mr.  Longworth,  well-fed,  well-housed,  well-educated 
men  are  always  more  efficient,  and  that  is  the  difference  between 
our  workmen  and  the  workmen  abroad.  Ours  are  fed  and  housed 
and  clothed  and  schooled,  and,  of  course,  they  are  more  efficient. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Wells,  in  representing  this  industry, 
as  asking  for  a  continuance  of  the  duty  as  it  is  under  the  present 
law  and  that  it  be  sustained  by  a  tax  as  it  is,  that  it  should  be  treated 
any  differently  from  the  shoe  industry  or  the  metal  industry  or  any 
other  industry  in  the  country  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  However,  if  you  were  shipping  several  million  dollars' 
worth  abroad  in  competition  with  all  the  world,  like  the  shoe  manu- 
facturers in  Mr.  Hill's  country,  with  no  importations,  you  would  not 
be  here  asking  for  any  tariff  at  all,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not  know.  That  is  a  hypothetical  condition  that. 
I  have  never  gone  into.  I  can  not  answer  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  case,  Mr.  Wells.  It 
is  not  a  question  of  whether  there  is  any  shipping  abroad  or  whether 
there  is  any  importing.  The  whole  question  is  whether  a  tariff 
should  be  laid  upon  this  industry  purely  for  revenue  or  whether  it 
should  be  laid  for  protection.  The  question  which  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  asked,  of  course,  has  a  bearing  upon  that  issue, 
but  do  the  pottery  companies  of  Ohio,  represented  by  a  gentleman 
who  b?lieves  in  a' tariff  for  revenue  only,  come  here  and  ask  for  a 
protective  tariff  or  do  they  come  and  ask'  for  a  tariff  for  revenue  only 
upon  the  products  of  this  industry  ? 
78059°— VOL  1—1 :.',  —  41 


642  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTEBY. 

Mr.  WELLS.  I- 


Mr.  HILL.  Let  me  supplement  that. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  We  had  a  gentleman  here  yesterday  who  was  a  Demo- 
cratic presidential  elector,  who  said  that  ne  had  stumped  this  country 
in  opposition  to  the  protective  policy,  and  yet  he  came  here  and  said 
if  the  rates  provided  in  the  bill  which  passed  Congress  at  the  last 
session  were  enacted  into  law,  it  would  destroy  his  industry,  and  he 
would  be  driven  out  of  it.  Do  you  come  here  under  the  same  condi- 
tions ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  represent  only  the  manufacturers. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  know;  but  do  they  come  here  asking  that? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Our  manufacturers  have  always  consistently  advocated 
a  protective  policy,  and  they  do  yet;  and  they  believe  everv  other 
American  industry  should  receive  the  same  treatment  as  their  own. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  a  question  which  is  beyond  the  manufacturers. 
It  is  a  question  for  all  the  people  of  your  district.  Do  your  people 
come  here  to  ask  for  protection,  the  people  of  your  district  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  The  voters  in  the  part  of  the  district  in  which  the  pot- 
teries are  located  voted  strongly  for  protection. 

Mr.  HILL.  How  did  it  happen  that  they  send  a  man  here  who  votes 
against  protection  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Unfortunately  the  district  is  not  all  a  pottery  district. 
There  is  a  large  part  of  it  where  iron  is  manufactured,  and  a  large 
part  of  it  is  agricultural,  and  a  part  of  it  is  devoted  to  other  industries; 
but  that  part  of  the  district — 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  you  do  not  believe  that,  in  justice  to  these  tariff 
rates,  it  is  proper  for  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to  base  the 
rates  on  the  fact  of  whether  a  man  voted  for  or  against  them? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  would  not  like  to  pass  upon  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Mr.  James. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Can  you  see  how  the  fact  that  any  man  voted  in  a  par- 
ticular way  is  material  when  the  committee  is  trying  to  properly 
adjust  the  tariff  rates  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  should  like  to  know— 

The  CHAIRMAN.- We  want  to  allow  as  much  leniency  as  possible  to 
the  members  of  the  committee,  but  I  do  not  think  it  is  exactly  fair  to 
grill  a  witness  on  his  political  principles. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  think  the  witness  came  here  with  a  full  understanding 
of  the  conditions  which  obtain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state,  and  I  think  I  state  correctly  the  judg- 
ment of  the  committee,  that  the  real  issue  is  whether  the  present  rate 
is  competitive  or  not,  and  that  is  what  the  gentleman  from  Connecti- 
cut is  trying  to  bring  out  from  Mr.  Wells.  I  think  the  witness  has 
clearly  shown  competition  of  a  large  percentage  on  the  products 
involved  in  this  industry.  That  is  the  governing  reason,  from  our 
standpoint,  in  fixing  a  revenue  tariff,  because,  without  competition, 
we  can  not  have  revenue;  but  1  do  not  think  it  is  well  for  the  com- 
mittee  to  grill  witnesses  as  to  their  political  beliefs,  although  the 
Chair  will  be  glad  to  allow  any  member  of  the  committee  to  express 
his  view  at  any  time.  1  think  we  had  better  excuse  the  witness. 


SCHEDULE   B.  648 

PARAGRAPHS  92  94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  do  not  suppose  Mr.  Wells  cares  whether  you  call  it 
protective  or  this  new  term  "competitive,"  that  has  lately  been  put 
in  the  vocabulary,  so  long  as  he  gets  his  60  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  word  "competitive"  is  no  new  term.  It  was 
under  your  tariff  bill. 

Mr.  WELLS.  If  I  may  revert  for  a  moment,  I  do  not  think  the 
potters  are  voting  for  the  tariff  for  revenue  principle  or  for  the  tariff 
for  revenue  candidate.  They  voted  the  other  way. 

Mr.  HILL.  Of  course,  I  do  not  care  how  they  voted;  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference  to  me.  The  question  I  want  to  know  is  whether  this 
industry  was  sustained  by  the  prop  of  a  tax,  and  you  stated  that  you 
requested  an  examination  made  of  conditions.  I  ask  you  frankly 
whether  you  know  of  any  industry  in  the  United  States  that  would 
not  gladly  submit  to  that  same  examination,  if  it  involved  the  car- 
rying out  of  protective  principles  and  the  equaling  of  competition. 
Now,  do  you  know  of  any  sucn  industry  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  has  not  the  legislation  of  Congress 
during  the  past  two  years  utterly  ignored  the  question  as  to  the  con- 
ditions which  you  ask  them  now  to  agree  to  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  The  records  of  Congress  will  speak  for  themselves. 

Mr.  HILL.  Very  well. 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  have  my  opinion  on  that,  of  course. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  think  there  is  any  industry  in  this  country 
that  is  engaged  in  an  attempt  to  monopolize  the  price  of  articles  sold 
to  the  people  of  this  country  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  In  this  industry? 

Mr.  JAMES.  No,  you  have  answered  the  general  question  that,  in 
your  judgment,  all  of  the  industries  of  the  United  States  were  willing 
to  make  a  formal  showing  of  their  books  to  this  committee.  Now,  I 
ask  you  if  you  are  able  to  tell  us  that  there  are  any  industries  in  this 
country  that  are  attempting  to  monopolize  and  control  the  price  to 
the  injury  of  the  consumer? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Personally,  I  know  of  none,  although  I  do  not  deny 
the  fact  that  they  may  exist. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  suppose  they  would  be  willing  to  come  before  this 
committee  and  show  that,  when  our  courts  are  trying  to  prosecute  them, 
and  have  to  wring  from  them  by  the  hand  of  the  law  every  fact  and  cir- 
cumstance connected  with  their  business  ?  Do  you  believe  that  charac  - 
ter  of  business  would  be  willing  to  open  their  books  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  WELLS.  In  my  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut,  I 
stated  that  I  believed  a  great  majority  of  them  would  be  willing  to 
lay  open  all  their  books,  but  there  may  be  a  few  that  are  not,  and 
they  ought  to  be  compelled  to. 

Mr.  HILL.  Who  are  they? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  say  there  may  be.     I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  stated  all  the  industries  of  the  country. 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not  know  that  there  are  any. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  had  the  representative  of  an  industry  before  us 
the  other  day  who  refused  to  lay  open  the  books  of  his  company.  He 
was  one  of  Mr.  Hill's  friends. 

Mr.  HILL.  No;  the  gentleman  is  entirely  mistaken.  You  will 
find  that  the  gentleman  yesterday  submitted  a  letter  answering  the 


644  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92  94— POTTERY. 

question,  and  saying  that  he  misunderstood  the  question  of  the 
member  of  the  committee. 

Mr  JAMES.  It  was  the  man  who  was  talking  about  the  phonograph. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  He  would  not  tell  us  whether  his  company  had 
actually  invested  $1,000,000  or  $500,000  or  $300,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  a  large  number  of  witnesses  here,  and  I 
would  like  to  have  you  confine  the  statements  to  the  facts. 

The  complete  brief  of  Mr.  Wells  is  as  follows : 

Almost  80  per  cent  of  all  the  earthenware  dishes  produced  in  the  United  States  are 
made  in  the  eighteenth  congressional  district  of  Ohio  and  the  territory  immediately 
surrounding  it. 

Hon.  J.  J.  Whitacre,  Representative  in  Congress  from  that  district,  recently  addressed 
a  circular  letter  to  many  of  his  manufacturing  constituents,  including  the  potters,  a 
complete  copy  of  which  is  attached  to  this  brief. 

After  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  will  grant 
hearings  to  those  desiring  to  be  heard,  he  says  in  the  second  paragraph: 

"Personally  I  do  not  know  whether  the  present  rates  on  your  products  are  too  high 
or  not.  I  would  favor  a  proposition  from  you  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to 
throw  open  your  books  and  factories  to  the  experts  selected  by  the  committee  to 
ascertain  the  exact  conditions  that  obtain  in  your  industry  as  regards  all  matters 
which  enter  into  your  cost." 

The  Pottery,  Glass  and  Brass  Salesman,  a  journal  of  the  pottery  and  glass  trades, 
published  in  New  York,  in  commenting  upon  this  letter  in  the  issue  of  December 
26,  1912,  says: 

"Representative  Whitacre  consulted  with  members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee before  framing  his  address  to  the  manufacturers,  then  laid  it  before  a  caucus 
of  the  Democratci  members  of  the  Ohio  delegation." 

Obviously  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether  this  newspaper  statement  is  correct 
that  some  members  of  your  committee  were  cognizant  of  the  proposition  made  by 
Mr.  Whitacre,  nor  do  I  know  whether  it  has  your  approval,  but  believing  we  all  agree 
that  whatever  action  you  may  take  in  adjusting  the  rate  of  duty  upon  pottery  should 
be  based  upon  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  exact  facts,  I  desire  now  to  extend  to 
you  an  urgent  invitation,  upon  behalf  of  the  American  potters,  to  do  the  precise 
thing  suggested  by  Mr.  Whitacre. 

We  will  cheerfully  throw  our  factories  and  our  books  open  to  examination  by  any 
expert  or  any  commission  that  you  may  designate  for  that  purpose,  and  we  will  dili- 
gently and  without  reservation  assist  in  developing  every  fact  and  all  statistics  that 
may  have  any  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue. 

As  the  result  of  having  sent  an  expert  representative  abroad  frequently  during 
recent  years  to  study  competitive  conditions  in  Europe,  and  from  systematic  work 
in  gathering  together  the  essential  facts  concerning  home  production,  we  have  an 
accumulation  of  accurate  data  covering  every  phase  of  the  industry,  more  complete 
perhaps  than  the  information  available  concerning  any  other  industry  that  will  come 
before  you  for  consideration.  Everything  we  have  will  be  cheerfully  submitted  to 
your  representatives. 

Should  you  determine  to  make  this  investigation  and  the  result  should  not  con- 
vince any  impartial  individual  or  commission  of  the  following  facts,  then  we  will 
surrender  our  rase  and  willingly  accept  any  rate  of  duty  the  wisdom  of  Congress  may 
impose  upon  pottery. 

1.  That  there  is  more  money  spent  every  year  by  the  American  "ultimate  con- 
sumer" for  pottery  made  abroad  than  for  pottery  made  at  home. 

2.  That  the  full  equivalent  of  all  the  protection  American  pottery  has  ever  enjoyed 
has  gone  into  the  pay  envelope  of  the  workmen  and  has  not  stuck  in  the  office. 

3.  That  the  average  wages  paid  to  American  pottery  workpeople  is  more  than  100 
per  cent  greater  than  the  average  wages  paid  in  competing  factories  abroad. 

4.  That  the  average  wages  paid  American  pottery  workpeople  are  at  least  as  good 
OP  those  paid  in  any  other  industry  of  equal  importance  in  this  or  any  other  country. 

-3.  That  the  profits  of  the  American  pottery  industry  at  large  for  the  last  three 
years  did  not  exceed  (><f  per  cent  upon  the  actual  capital* invested. 

(i.  That  the  profits  of  the  manufacturer,  of  the  importer,  of  the  wholesaler,  and  the 
retailer  are  "renter  upon  imported  than  upon  domestic  pottery. 

7.  That  any  reduction  in  selling  price  of  American  pottery,  resulting  from  a  tariff 
reduftion.  must  l>e  followed  by  a  corresponding  reduction  of  wages  if  our  potteries 
are  to  continue  m  business. 


SCHEDULE    B.  645 

PARAGRAPHS  92^94— POTTERY. 

8.  That  the  quality  has  steadily  improved  and  the  cost  to  the  ultimate  consumer 
has  steadily  decreased  during  the  growth  of  the  American  industry,  retail  prices  being 
now  materially  lower  than  under  the  Wilson  bill. 

9.  That  the  American  pottery  manufacturer  holds  no  monopoly  upon  any  part  of 
the  trade,  but  through  difference  in  labor  cost  the  foreign  manufacturer  holds  a  prac- 
tical monopoly  upon  the  market  for  high-class  china. 

Obviously,  I  can  not  prove  all  these  assertions  within  the  time  allotted,  but  acting 
upon  another  suggestion  embodied  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Whitacre,  which  extract  I 
quote  below.  I  desire  to  submit  a  sworn  statement  covering  certain  vital  facts. 

The  following  is  the  extract  from  Mr.  Whitacre's  letter: 

"If  you  are  coming  to  Washington  to  ask  any  rate  as  necessary  to  your  industry, 
you  should  at  least  now  come  to  a  showing  of  exact  facts,  free  from  general  denunciation 
and  claptrap  statements.  This  is  a  time  when  sound  horse  sense  should  be  applied 
and  wild  statements  discarded." 

Within  the  past  week  sworn  statements  have  been  given  to  me  by  21  pottery  firms, 
which,  with  the  exception  of  one  small  concern,  include  every  firm  in  actual  operation 
in  the  Ohio  Valley,  between  East  Liverpool,  Ohio,  and  Wheeling,  W.  Va.  These 
represent  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  this  country  in  earthenware. 

The  sworn  statements  set  forth: 

First.  The  actual  capital  invested. 

Second.  The  actual  sales,  separately,  for  each  of  the  three  years,  1909,  1910,  1911. 

Third.  The  actual  profits  or  losses  in  dollars  and  cents  for  each  of  these  three  years. 

While  I  shall  not  expose  for  publication  the  intimate  facts  shown  by  these  indi- 
vidual statements,  I  have  made  an  accurate  tabulation,  showing  the  aggregate  facts 
for  the  21  factories  and  have  attached  to  this  brief  a  sworn  statement  that  this  tabu- 
lation is  a  correct  transcript  from  the  individual  statements. 

Further,  I  stand  ready  to  submit  the  individual  statements  to  any  person  your 
chairman  may  care  to  designate  for  that  purpose. 

The  reports  were  made  by  the  following  firms:  D.  E.  McNicol  Pottery  Co.,  East 
Liverpool,  Ohio;  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Standard 
Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Vodrey  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Hall 
China  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Globe  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Cartwright 
Bros.  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Colonial  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Potters 
Cooperative  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Smith-Phillips  China  Co.,  East  Liverpool, 
Ohio;  Trenle  China  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  West  End  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool, 
Ohio;  C.  C.  Thompson  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Harker  Pottery  Co.,  East 
Liverpool,  Ohio;  Edwin  M.  Knowles  China  Co.,  .Chester,  W.  Va.;  Taylor,  Smith  & 
Taylor  Co.,  Chester,  W.  Va.;  Homer  Laughlin  China  Co.,  Newell,  W.  Va.;  Wellsville 
China  Co.,  Wellsville,  Ohio;  United  States  Potteries  Co.,  Wellsville,  Ohio;  Steuben- 
ville  Pottery  Co.,  Steubenville,  Ohio;  Warwick  China  Co.,  Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

The  tabulation  develops  the  following  facts,  and  since  the  list  of  firms  includes  the 
recognized  best  profit  makers  in  the  trade,  the  result  may  be  accepted  as  a  fair  show- 
ing of  the  percentage  of  earnings  of  all  the  potteries  of  the  country: 

Ayyregate  results  taken  from  the  sworn  statements  of  the  21  firms  named  above  cover- 
ing their  business  for  the  years  1909,  1910,  and  1911. 

Total  capital  invested $6,  521,  772. 22 

Total  sales,  1909...  6,234,029.61 

Total  sales,  1910. . .  6,  983,  990. 18 

Total  sales.  1911 -  -     6,  982,  429. 05 

Total  profits,  1909,  17  firms.  .  461,  452.  62 

Total  losses,  1909,  4  firms _      33,  883. 09 

Net  profits.  1909 427,  569. 53 

Total  profits,  1910,  18  firms 546,  559. 84 

Total  losses,  1910.  3  firms 23,  452.  43 

Net  profits,  1910 523, 107. 41 

Total  profits,  1911,  16  firms 409,  458. 19 

Total  losses,  1911 ,  5  firms _      52,  480.  71 

Net  profits,  1911 356,  977.  48 


646  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Percentage  of  net  profits  to  capital  stock:  **«  cent. 

1909 6i 

1910 8 

1911 5J 


Total  net  earnings,  3  years 20 

Average  per  year 6J 

Small  fractions  have  been  dropped  in  this  percentage  calculation,  but  an  examina- 
tion of  above  figures  will  show  the  average  earnings  of  6§  per  cent  per  annum  to  be 
almost  precisely  correct. 

I  respectfully  submit  that  these  figures  should  be  taken  into  account  in  consider- 
ing a  pottery  tariff,  and  should  any  doubt  exist  as  to  their  fairly  representing  condi- 
tions in  the  pottery  trade,  then  the  facts  should  be  investigated  at  first  sources  by  your 
own  representative. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  I  have  not  included  in  this  calculation  the  returns  from 
one  firm  in  the  Ohio  Valley  that  has  gone  out  of  business  and  three  that  have  failed 
during  the  past  two  years. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

W.  E.  WELLS. 

SWORN   STATEMENT. 

I,  W.  E.  Wells,  of  Newell,  W.  Va.,  being  first  duly  sworn,  upon  my  oath  say  that 
the  tabulation  appended  below  represents  the  correct  aggregate  taken  from  the  sworn 
statements  (with  exceptions  as  noted)  of  the  following  21pottery  firms:  D.  E.  McNicol 
Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles  Co.,  East  Liverpool, 
Ohio;  Standard  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Vodrey  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liver- 
pool, Ohio;  Hall  China  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Globe  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool, 
Ohio;  Cartwright  Bros.  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Colonial  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liver- 

Eool,  Ohio;  Potters  Cooperative  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Smith-Phillips  China  Co., 
ast  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Trenle  China  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  West  End  Pottery 
Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  C.  C.  Thompson  Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Harker 
Pottery  Co.,  East  Liverpool,  Ohio;  Edwin  M.  Knowles  China  Co.,  Chester,  W.  Va.; 
Taylor,  Smith  &  Taylor  Co.,  Chester,  W.  Va.;  Homer  Laughlin  China  Co.,  Newell, 
W.'Va.;  Wellsville  China  Co.,  Wellsville,  Ohio;  United  States  Potteries  Co.,  Wells- 
ville,  Ohio;  Steubenville  Pottery  Co.,  Steubenville,  Ohio;  Warwick  China  Co.,  Wheel- 
ing, W.  Va. 

Aggregate  results  taken  from  the  sworn  statements  of  the  21  firms  named  above  covering 
their  business  for  the  years  1909,  1910,  and  1911. 

Total  capital  invested $6,  521,  772.  22 


Total  sales,  1909 6,  234,  029.  61 

Total  sales,  1910 G,  983,  990.  18 

Total  sales,  1911 6,982,429.05 


Total  profits,  1909,  17  firms 461,  452.  62 

Total  losses,  1909,  4  firms 33,  883.  09 

Net  profits,  1909 427, 569.  53 


Total  profits,  1910,  18  firms 546,  559.  84 

Total  looses,  1910,  3  firms 23,  452.  43 

Net  profits,  1910 523, 107.41 


Total  profits,  191 1,  16  firms 409,  458.  19 

Total  losses,  1911.  5  firms 52,  480.  71 

Net  profits,  1911 356,  977.  48 


SCHEDULE   B.  647 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94—  POTTERY. 

IVrcontage  of  net  profits  to  capital  stock:  Per  c«nt. 

1909  ...........................................................  6i 

1910  ...........................................  g 

1911  .........  5 


Total  net  earnings,  3  years  ...................................  20 

Average  per  year  ......................  .  .....................  6f 

W.  E.  WELLS. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  in  my  presence  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  this  8th  day  of 
January,  A.  D.  1913. 
[SEAL.]  EUSTACE  C.  OWEN, 

Notary  Public. 

Exceptions:  Sales  of  the  Harker  Pottery  Co.  not  sworn  to.    Sales  and  profits  of  the 
C.  0.  Thompson  Pottery  Co.  not  sworn  to. 


COPY  OF  CIRCULAR  LETTER  BY  MR.  WHITACRE. 

It  is  definitely  announced  that  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  will  take  up  the  tariff-revision  program  early  in  January.  Hearings 
will  be  granted  those  who  desire  to  be  heard. 

Personally,  I  do  not  know  whether  the  present  rates  on  your  products  are  too  high 
or  not.  I  would  favor  a  proposition  from  you  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to 
throw  open  your  books  and  factories  to  the  experts  selected  by  the  committee  to  ascer- 
tain the  exact  conditions  that  obtain  in  your  industry  as  regards  all  matters  which 
enter  into  your  cost. 

You  could  also  furnish  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee  such  information  as  you 
undoubtedly  have  with  respect  to  prices  of  foreign  articles  entering  into  competition 
with  you;  that  is,  prices  at  which  foreign  articles  are  actually  offered  for  sale  in  the 
country  of  production.  Knowing,  then,  your  cost  and  foreign  actual  sale  price,  it 
seems  to  me  that  a  rate  could  be  fixed  which  would  at  once  be  fair  to  the  consuming 
public,  yourself,  and  your  employees. 

Generalities  will  no  longer  be  accepted.  Exact  truths  must  be  ascertained  and 
stated.  The  cry  of  "ruin"  has  been  so  overworked  that  men  no  longer  give  credit  to 
your  statements.  It  is  unfortunate  that  this  is  the  case,  but  so  it  is.  The  reports  of 
the  present  Tariff  Board  on  the  paper  and  woolen  schedules  demonstrate  that  exact 
conditions  at  home  can  be  ascertained,  and  certainly  these  exact  home  conditions 
ought  to  be  compared  with  the  prices  at  which  foreign-made  goods  are  actually  sold 
in  the  market  of  the  country  of  production. 

If  you  are  coming  to  Washington  to  ask  any  rate  as  necessary  to  your  industry  you 
should  at  least  now  come  to  a  showing  of  exact  facts,  free  from  general  denunciation 
and  claptrap  statements.  This  is  a  time  when  sound  horse  sense  should  be  applied 
and  wild  statement  discarded. 

You  are  entitled  to  fair  treatment,  and  so  also  is  the  public  who  uses  your  goods. 
You  should  not  be  destroyed  by  unfair  competition,  and  your  customers  should  not  be 
robbed  by  any  unfair  killing  of  competition  on  your  part.  To  keep  yourself  from 
unfair  foreign  competition  you  should  now  lay  yourself  open  to  examination  for  exact 
facts  in  your  industry.  If  you  disclose  the  actual  condition,  you  can  rest  assured  of  a 
fair  rate. 

I  want  to  impress  upon  you  that  the  time  is  past  when  tariff  rates  will  be  fixed  by 
you  alone  without  regard  to  others.  I  take  no  stock  in  the  statement  of  some  that  your 
interests  shall  not  be  considered,  and  am  equally  certain  that  yours  is  not  the  only 
interest  to  be  regarded . 

You  are  entitled  to  have  a  rate  fixed  on  the  basis  of  truth  as  to  your  conditions  of 
production  and  sale,  but  you  should  not  be  permitted  to  exclude  foreign  competition 
by  tariff  rates  fixed  by  you  to  the  end  that  your  industry  may  have  this  market  at  your 
terms  of  sale,  on  the  principle  of  the  "public  be  damned."  The  public  will  not  "be 
damned."  The  public  has  determined  to  take  a  hand  in  fixing  the  rates,  and  the 
danger  now  is  that  you  will  "be  damned." 

Hence  the  necessity  of  moderate  statements  on  the  part  of  all .  Common  sense  should 
prevail  and  fair  rates" should  be  established.  I  shall  be  glad  to  aid  you  in  this  respect, 
but  I  am  a  Congressman  for  all  the  people,  you  included.  I  am  ready  to  cooperate 
with  you  along  the  lines  above  indicated. 

J.  J.  WHITACRE. 


648  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

DETAILED  STATEMENT. 
POTTERY  WARE. 

The  term  pottery  or  pottery  ware  embraces  all  wares  made  of  earthy  materials, 
of  which  the  silicate  of  aluminum  is  the  chief  ingredient,  and  embraces  products 
differing  widely  in  character  and  in  value,  ranging  from  the  cooimon  brick  to  the 
most  elaborate  and  artistic  piece  of  chinaware,  worth  many  times  its  weight  in  gold. 
Few,  if  any,  industries  have  so  large  a  percentage  of  labor  cost  in  their  production; 
the  crude  materials  entering  into  the  body  of  material  ware  are  of  nominal  value  as 
found  in  nature,  being  worth  from  25  cents  to  50  cents  per  ton  in  the  ground.  A 
dozen  of  the  ordinary  white  china  plates  selling  at  $1.50  per  dozen  wholesale  con- 
tains about  12  pounds  or  less  of  the  combined  materials.  This  amount  of  material 
is  worth  about  one-tenth  of  a  cent  in  the  ground.  The  difference  between  one-tenth 
of  a  cent  and  $1.50  indicates  the  labor  cost  from  start  to  finish. 

MATERIALS. 

A  great  variety  of  materials  enter  into  the  composition  of  a  piece  of  decorated 
pottery  ware,  chief  of  which,  however,  are  clays,  quartz,  and  feldspar.  In  the  glaze 
we  have  the  addition  of  borax  or  boracic  acid,  lead,  zinc,  and  paris  white.  In  deco- 
rating we  have  the  whole  range  of  metallic  colors  and  various  oils.  The  production 
of  the  lithographer's  art  is  largely  in  use. 

The  clay  comes  largely  from  Florida,  Georgia,  North  Carolina,  Maryland,  Dela- 
ware, Pennsylvania,  Missouri,  and  Texas.  The  large  quantities  of  china  clay  and 
ball  clay  are  imported  from  England. 

The  flint  or  quartz  is  produced  in  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Massa- 
chusetts, and  some  of  our  Western  States. 

The  feldspar  of  the  quality  required  is  found  in  limited  quantities  in  Delaware, 
Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  Maine,  and  Canada.  The  borax  and 
boracic  acid  comes  from  California. 

Coal,  principally  from  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  West  Virginia. 

The  decorating  materials  are  produced  to  an  extent  in  this  country,  but  are  largely 
imported. 

CLASSES    OK    POTTERY    WARE. 

There  are  two  main  general  divisions  of  earthy  products,  technically  known  as 
earthenware  and  china,  the  chief  difference  being  in  the  character  of  the  body.  A 
general  definition  of  earthenware  being  ''wares  of  opaque  and  nonvitreous  character," 
the  body  of  the  ware  being  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  porous  or  absorbent  to  liquids, 
whereas  china  is  of  a  vitreous  or  glassy  nature,  owing  to  a  larger  proportion  of  fusible 
or  vitrefiable  material  in  its  construction.  When  broken  it  displays  a  glassy  fracture, 
and  is  generally  translucent. 

In  the  manufacture  of  the  earthenware  the  materials  bear  a  larger  ratio  of  value  to 
labor  in  the  total  cost  than  is  the  case  in  the  manufacture  of  chinaware.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  fact,  the  American  pottery  has  been  able  to  develop  more  rapidly  in 
earthenware  business  in  this  country,  owing  to-  the  smaller  proportion  of  labor  cost. 
For  the  same  reason  the  manufacture  of  chinaware  has  not  progressed  with  any  rapidity. 

In  the  production  of  tableware  little  machinery  can  be  used,  and  where  it  is  appli- 
cable the  human  hand  is  indispensable  in  connection  therewith.  The  same  is  true 
in  relation  to  the  building  of  articles  for  sanitary  purposes.  In  the  making  of  por- 
celain for  electrical  purposes,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  tiles,  machinery  in  the  form 
of  presses  and  dies  is  used  to  a  considerable  extent,  but  when  machinery  is  used  to 
the  limited  possibility,  then  labor  must  be  applied  in  the  finishing,  handling,  burn- 
ing, and  decorating  before  the  article  is  ready  for  market. 

PROCESS    OF    MANUFACTURE. 

Materials  are  delivered  to  the  potters  in  a  state  ready  for  mixing. 

When  the  materials  are  brought  into  a  liquid  combination,  which  is  simply  a  mix- 
ture and  not.  a  chemical  solution,  the  product  is  very  carefully  sifted  and  forced  through 
filtered  presses,  after  which  it  is  cut  up  and  forced  through  a  compressing  mill,  so  as  to 
produce  a  density  without  losing  elasticity.  It  is  then  ready  for  the  potter's  use. 
The  various  processes  through  which  the  material  must  pass  and  the  manipulations 
it  must  .1:0  through  are  numerous  before  it  is  ready  for  the  burning  process.  After 
being  formed  and  thoroughly  dried,  while  still  in  an  extremely  fragile  condition,  it 


SCHEDULE   B.  049 

PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTEBY. 

must  go  through  the  first  firing  process,  after  which  it  is  inspected,  brushed,  dipped 
in  a  liquid  glass,  and  again  put  into  the  kiln  for  a  second  burning.  The  ware  is  then 
sorted,  carefully  inspected,  and  is  in  a  marketable  condition.  The  process  through 
which  the  ware  must  pass  is  slow  and  the  turn  over  of  the  money  invested  is  corre- 
spondingly slow,  so  that  if  a  manufacturer  can  turn  his  investment  one  and  one-half 
times  in  the  year  he  is  doing  extremely  well.  The  average,  however,  would  not  be 
more  than  one  and  one-fourth  times  the  invastment;  for  example,  a  pottery  invest- 
ment of  $100,000  would  do  well  to  produce  $125,000  in  the  year. 

COST   OP   PRODUCTION. 

In  considering  the  cost  of  production  we  have  a  number  of  elements  to  be  con- 
sidered, each  of  which  when  compared  with  conditions  abroad  show  to  the  great 
advantage  of  our  foreign  competitors.  In  considering  the  cost  of  production  of  pottery 
ware  the  following  elements  must  be  taken  into  consideration: 

First.  The  relative  amount  of  capital  investment  necessary. 

Second.  The  relative  cost  of  materials. 

Third.  The  relative  cost  of  labor. 

Fourth.  The  relative  fixed  charges,  and  overhead  expenses. 

Fifth.  Trade  conditions. 

Under  these  heads  I  have  subdivided  the  various  subjects  as  follows: 

CAPITAL. 

I.  Plant. — 1,  Land;  2,  building;  3,  machinery;  4,  tools  and  implements;  5,  blocks, 
casks,  and  molds;  6,  saggers,  or  firing  cases;  7,  wareboards. 

II.  Working  capital. — 1,  For  carrying  merchandise  and  stock  in  the  process  of  manu- 
facture; 2,  for  carrying  book  accounts  and  credits. 

MATERIALS. 

I.  Materials  used  in  the  construction  of  the  ware  itself,  and  in  decorating  the  same. — 1, 
China  clays;  2,  ball  clays;  3,  quartz;  4,  feldspar;  5,  Cornwall  stone;  6,  carbonate  of 
lead;  7,  oxide  of  zinc;  8,  soda;  9,  borax;  10,  boracic  acid;  11,  paris  white;  12,  deco- 
rating colors;  13,  liquid  bright  gold;  14,  coin  gold;  15,  decalcomania,  chrome,  or  trans- 
fer sheets. 

II.  Materials  used  in  the  process  of  making,  but  not  part  of  the  ware  itself. — 1,  Coal;  2, 
wood;  3,  plaster  of  Paris;  4,  sagger  clay  or  marl;  5,  wad  clay. 


I.  Wages  paid  to  the  producing  help — all  those  through  whose  hands  the  ware  passes  in 
the  process  of  making. — 1,  For  preparing  the  body  and  glaze;  2,  potters,  or  those  who 
form  the  ware;  3,  kiln  or  oven  workers;  4,  biscuit  and  glost  warehouse  workers;  5, 
decorators. 

II.  Wages  paid  to  the  nonproducing  help — all  other  help  necessary  in  operating  the 
plant. — 1,  Modeling  and  mold  making;  2,  sagger  making,  etc.;  3,  engineers  and  fire- 
men; 4,  superintendents,  foremen,  etc.;  5,  office  help;  6,  teamsters,  stable  help,  and 
odd  labor. 

FIXED  CHARGES  AND  OVERHEAD  EXPENSES. 

1,  Taxes;  2,  insurance;  3,  interest  and  discount;  4,  repairs,  etc. 

TRADE  CONDITIONS. 

1,  Proportion  of  male  and  female  labor;  2,  age  limit  of  child  labor;  3,  hours  of  labor; 
4,  apprenticeship  regulations;  5,  trades-union  regulations:  6,  government  regulations. 

As  in  all  other  lines  of  industry,  the  cost  of  production  varies  according  to  the 
country  in  which  the  goods  are  produced.  We  must  therefore  consider  the  cost  in 
the  various  countries,  comparing  the  same  with  the  cost  of  similar  articles  made  in 
the  United  States. 

The  wages  paid  in  England  being  the  highest  of  European  countries,  we  will  first 
consider  the  various  items  of  cost  from  the  English  standpoint.  Permit  me  to  state 
that  such  a  thing  as  an  exact  comparison  of  cost  in  many  respects  is  an  absolute  impos- 
sibility, and  the  best  I  expect  to  accomplish  is  to  give  you  a  clear  and  fair  statement  of 
facts  and  figures  as  they  exist,  adjusting  differences  in  conditions  and  money 
value  to  bring  the  comparison  as  far  as  possible  to  a  uniform  basis. 


650  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92~94— POTTERY. 

COMPARATIVE   COST   OF   PRODUCING   EARTHENWARE  IN   ENGLAND   AND   AMERICA. 

The  methods  used  in  producing  earthenware  in  England  and  America  are  almost 
identical.  Very  accurate  comparisons  can  therefore  be  made.  The  figures  following 
are  based  upon  information  secured  by  me  officially  while  occupying  the  position  of 
American  consul  in  the  great  pottery  center  of  England.  These  figures  were  con- 
firmed in  some  cases  by  examination  of  the  books  of  the  factories.  To  further  verify 
the  figures  I  submitted  the  completed  report  to  one  of  the  leading  manufacturers  of 
England,  who  pronounced  it  accurate  and  fair  in  all  its  details. 

I  have  since  verified  my  original  figures  on  two  separate  occasions,  making  such 
alterations  as  had  occurred  during  the  interim. 

AMOUNT  OF  CAPITAL  INVESTMENT. 

I.  Plant  investment. 

From  actual  valuations  of  land  similarly  situated,  and  from  builders'  estimates  on 
the  same  plans,  I  have  found  that  a  plant  costing  $60,000  in  England  would  cost 
$80,000  in  the  United  States.  These  figures  include  fixtures  and  machinery. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  it  is  necessary  to  have  certain  additional  implements  for 
the  operating  of  the  plant,  which  properly  go  into  plant  investment,  viz:  Saggars  (or 
fire-clay  cases),  molds  (plaster  of  paris),  and  ware  boards. 

As  these  items  are  made  piecework,  the  exact  difference  can  be  ascertained  and  are 
shown  in  following  table: 

Plant  investment. 


England. 

America. 

Land  machinery   buildings  fixtures 

$60,000 

$80,000 

Molds.  ..            ..     ..            ...          

4,680 

8,660 

Saggars 

1,260 

2,814 

Ware  boards  

2,000 

2,000 

67,940 

93,464 

II.    Working  capital  investment. 

In  making  the  following  statement,  I  do  so  based  on  the  factories  doing  business 
with  the  United  States,  or  for  such  part  of  their  business  as  they  do  with  the  United 
States. 

The  necessary  investment  is  considerably  greater  in  the  United  States  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons: 

(1)  The  greater  cost  of  materials  and  labor  necessitates  a  greater  cash  outlay. 

(2)  The  foreign  manufacturers  make  their  goods  largely  on  order  for  immediate 
shipment,  whereas  the  American  manufacturers  have  to  carry  large  stocks  of  finished 
ware  ready  for  immediate  demand.     The  American  manufacturer  has  to  warehouse 
his  merchandise  for  the  great  majority  of  his  customers.     This,  of  course,  necessitates 
the  locking  up  of  a  much  greater  amount  of  capital. 

(3)  Many  of  the  foreign  manufacturers  receive  prompt  cash  for  their  shipments  upon 
presentation  of  invoice  and  bill  of  lading  to  the  foreign  banker,  whereas  the  American 
manufacturer  as  a  rule  has  to  carry  large  book  accounts. 

(4)  In  considering  the  additional  investment  required  in  the  American  manufac- 
ture, we  must  also  consider  the  greater  rate  of  bank  interest  prevailing  in  America 
than  in  Europe,  interest  in  England  being  from  4  to  5  per  cent,  whereas  in  America 
it  is  from  5  to  6  per  cent — generally  6  per  cent. 

(~>)  The  fire  insurance  rates  are  enormously  different  in  the  two  countries.  In 
England  the  usual  pottery  rate  is  3s.  6d.  per  hundred  pounds  sterling,  or  about  17  cents 
per  hundred  dollars.  The  minimum  rate  for  the  best  risks  in  America  is  75  cents  per 
hundred  dollars,  whereas  the  underwriters  inform  me  that  the  average  risk  is  $1.50 
per  hundred. 

MATERIALS. 

The  following  table  indicates  the  relative  cost  of  the  several  materials  laid  down  at 
the  factories  in  Staffordshire,  and  in  Trenton,  N.  J.,  based  on  2,000-pound  tons,  with 
the  exception  of  coal,  which  is  based  on  the  long  ton,  2,240  pounds. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


651 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Materials. 


- 

England. 

America. 

China  clay: 
England  

per  ton 

$7.87 

(12.00 

Florida  

do 

10.75 

Georgia  

..  do... 

14.42 

North  Carolina  

do 

14.78 

Ball  clay,  England  

do    .. 

5.75 

8.80 

Quartz: 
Ground  flints  

...do... 

11.75 

11.76 

Ground  rock  

.      do 

8.40 

Ground  sand  

...do... 

11.76 

Cornwall  stoue  

...do... 

10.08 

13.44 

Feldspar  

do    . 

12.96 

11.76 

Saggar  clay: 
England  

...do... 

.90 

Mixed  American  

do.... 

2.75 

Wad  clay,  England  

....  do    .. 

.96 

Wad  clay,  American  

do  

1.62 

Coal,  English: 
Cockshead...                              .  . 

do    . 

2.56 

Cobbles  

.  do... 

2.10 

Slack 

do 

1.38 

Maryland 

do.... 

3.45 

Wood,  for  kindling  

per  cord.  . 

4.88 

4.00 

Plaster.  300  pounds  

per  barrel.  . 

1.32 

1.90 

White  iead  "  . 

per  pound.  . 

.047 

.051 

Zinc  oxide  

do  

.062 

.12 

Borax  

do.... 

.034 

.06 

Boracic  acid     .            .                    . 

...do... 

.043 

.06} 

Soda  

do.... 

.008 

.04 

Paris  white  

per  100  pounds.. 

.43 

.65 

The  argument  has  been  set  forth  that  the  western  pottery  manufacturers  have  great 
advantage  in  the  use  of  natural  gas.  This  was  true  when  gas  was  first  introduced,  but 
to-day  the  gas  is  metered  at  a  cost  exceeding  the  cost  of  coal,  the  price  being  13  cents 
per  1,000  feet,  or  a  cost  of  $45.81  per  kiln  for  the  first  or  biscuit  firing  of  a  16  foot  6 
inch  kiln,  and  $37.70  for  a  glost  16  foot  8  inch  kiln. 


LABOR. 


Under  this  head  we  have  two  groups: 

I.  The  producing  help.     By  that  I  mean  the  actual  makers  and  placers  of  the  ware. 

II.  Nonproducing  help,  or  those  who  have  some  part  in  the  process  of  manufacture 
and  the  placing  of  goods  in  condition  ready  for  market. 

Producing  help.— The  wages  to  producing  help  will  be  considered  under  two  headings: 

(1)  A  comparison  of  amount  of  wages  earned  by  the  various  trade  branches  under 
similar  conditions. 

(2)  By  comparing  in  detail  the  piecework  prices. 

The  following  figures  are  based  on  journeymen's  wages.  Where  blanks  occur 
opposite  the  wages  of  women,  they  indicate  that  women  are  not  employed  in  America. 

The  figures  indicate  the  net  earnings  to  the  operative,  having  deducted  therefrom 
the  amount  paid  by  him  to  his  assistants. 

Average  net  weekly  earnings  of  the  operatives  in  their  respective  branches. 


England. 

America. 

$6.90 

$27.31) 

8.42 

29.01 

7.22 

24.60 

Cup  makers: 
Men                                                                           

7.48 

28.80 

4.94 

None. 

Saucer  makers: 
Men                                                        

8.10 

27.00 

4.06 

None. 

8.60 

24.60 

5.94 

18.59 

5.82 

18.90 

2.60 

10.72 

9.96 

30.22 

7.70 

26.00 

9.12 

28.01 

C.68 

30.00 

6.44 

27.23 

Handlers: 

6.76 

29.41 

3.50 

None. 

Kilnmen  

7.20 

23.89 

652 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Confirming  the  above  figures,  the  report  of  the  English  Board  of  Trade  gives  the 
following  general  statement  of  the  weekly  earnings  paid  to  the  potters  of  Staffordshire. 

Potters,  clay  workers,  per  week,  25s.  to  35s.  ($6.08  to  $8.51). 

Oven  men,  kiln  placers,  per  week,  30s.  ($7.29). 

Painters,  gilders,  and  decorators,  per  week,  30s.  to  40s.  ($7.29  to  $9.72). 

Laborers,  per  week,  18s.  ($4.37). 

The  piecework  prices  have  been  reduced  to  a  common  basis  of  American  currency, 
and  to  dozens,  counting  12  to  the  dozen,  for  each  item. 

The  average  percentage  of  difference  considering  the  proportion  of  each  item  ordi- 
narily manufactured  is  about  111  per  cent. 

Comparative  piecework  prices. 
PRESSING. 


England. 

America. 

Increase. 

Brush  vases  

$0.219 

$0.30 

Percent. 
37 

Butters,  covered  

.578 

.64 

10 

Chambers,  covered: 
6-inch         .                 .              .         

.472 

.97 

105 

9-inch  

.472 

.88 

86 

Comports: 
7-inch  

.299 

.51 

70 

8-inch     

.299 

.55 

84 

9-inch  

.339 

.60 

77 

Cuspidors: 
2s.  unhd  

.758 

1.29 

70 

Is.  unhd  

.958 

1.47 

53 

Covered  dishes: 
7-inch  .                                             

.658 

1.01 

53 

8-inch  

.718 

1.11 

54 

9-inch    ....                         .                                                    .       . 

.778 

1.24 

59 

10-inch  

.837 

1.38 

65 

Covered  casseroles: 
7-inch 

.658 

.97 

47 

8-inch 

.718 

1.06 

47 

9-inch  

.778 

1.20 

54 

10-inch  

.837 

1.33 

71 

Creams: 
24s  

.259 

.45 

74 

30s  

.239 

.42 

70 

Ewers: 
Gs.  cable  

.058 

.92 

40 

9s.  cable  

.598 

.82 

37 

Mouth  

.252 

.45 

78 

Jugs: 
4s  

.504 

.85 

69 

OS  

.441 

.70 

56 

12s  

.346 

.55 

59 

24s  

.294 

.50 

70 

30s   ... 

.252 

.46 

82 

36s  

.252 

.40 

58 

Salads: 
7-inch  

.309 

.65 

111 

8-inch  

.369 

.75 

103 

9-inch  

.459 

.85 

85 

10-ineh  

.518 

.95 

83 

Sauce  boats  .   .                                          .... 

.279 

.42 

51 

Sauce  tureens  

.658 

1.00 

52 

Sauce  stands  .                       

.219 

.33 

51 

Sauce  ladles  

.099 

.25 

152 

Slop  jars,  No.  1  

2.159 

2.58 

20 

Soaps,  covered  and  drs  

.438 

.CO 

37 

Soup  tureens: 
9-inch  

1.67 

2.76 

64 

10-inch  

1.91 

2.99 

56 

Soup  ladles  

.18 

.34 

89 

Parlor  spittoons  .                                          .  . 

.239 

.69 

189 

Sugars: 
24s  

.438 

.64 

46 

30s  

.399 

.60 

50 

30s  

.359 

.56 

56 

Teapots,  24s  

.598 

1.00 

67 

Soup  stand: 
9-inch  

.438 

.55 

26 

10-iuch  

.438 

.64 

46 

SCHEDULE   B. 

PARAGRAPHS  92  94— POTTERY. 

Comparative  piecework  prices— Continued. 

JIGQERING  AND  JOLLYING. 


653 


England. 

America. 

Increase. 

Bowls: 
24s  

|0  0346 

SO  06 

Per  cent. 

30s  

0277 

055 

100 

36s  

0231 

05 

42s  

0197 

05 

156 

Butters,  individual  :  

0126 

0275 

114 

Basins: 
Outside  

21 

35 

66 

6  inches  inside  

21 

30 

43 

9  inches  inside  

189 

25 

32 

Cups,  sponged  

0147 

0325 

121 

Saucers: 
Tea  

0168 

03 

78 

Coffee  

0189 

03 

58 

A.  D  

0126 

03 

138 

Toy  .x  

0126 

03 

138 

Fruits,  all  sizes  

0168 

03 

78 

Ice  creams  

.0168 

03 

78 

Nappies: 
3-inch  

0633 

08 

26 

4-inch        

0633 

08 

9fi 

6-inch  

084 

10 

19 

6-inch  

.084 

10 

19 

7-inch  

0945 

10 

g 

8-inch  

.0945 

10 

g 

9-  inch  

.1155 

12 

4 

Plates: 
4-inch,  plain  

.0168 

0325 

93 

6-inch,  plain  

.0189 

.0375 

93 

6-inch,  plain  

.0215 

0425 

98 

7-inch,  plain  

.026 

.0475 

82 

8-inch,  plain  

.0304 

.055 

81 

6-inch,  plain,  deep  

.0189 

.045 

128 

6-inch,  plain,  deep  

.0215 

.05 

133 

7-inch,  plain,  deep  

.0262 

.055 

110 

8-inch,  plain,  deep  

.0304 

.0625 

106 

6-inch,  festoon 

.024 

.05 

108 

7-inch,  festoon  

.03 

.055 

83 

8-inch,  festoon  

.033 

.625 

89 

6-inch,  festoon,  deep  

.024 

.06 

150 

7-inch  festoon  deep       .      .                 .      .                   

.03 

.065 

117 

8-inch,  festoon,  deep  — 

.033 

.0725 

119 

HANDLING. 


Cups: 
Coffee  block    

$0.0168 

$0.04 

132 

A.  D.  block  

.0147 

.035 

138 

Tea  block                                           

.0147 

.035 

138 

Toy  block       

.0147 

.035 

138 

Mugs: 
24s  block           .          

.0315 

.6 

90 

30s  block                                                  

.0252 

.6 

138 

36s  block             .             

.021 

.6 

185 

42s  block  

.0179 

.6 

230 

DISH  AND  BAKER  MAKERS. 


Bakers: 

$0.0698 

$0.09 

29 

.0898 

.10 

42 

5-inch                                              

.0798 

.11 

38 

6-inch                                   

.0798 

.12 

50 

7-inch                                                          

.09 

.13 

44 

8-inch                                                

.0997 

.15 

50 

.1097 

.16 

46 

10-inch                                                 

.1197 

.18 

50 

Dishes: 
3-inch                                                    

.0698 

.09 

29 

.0698 

.10 

43 

5-inch                                                          

.0798 

.11 

38 

6-inch                                                     

.0997 

.12 

20 

.0997 

.13 

30 

8-inch                                                       

.0997 

-15 

50 

.1107 

.16 

34 

10-inch                                                         

.1197 

.18 

50 

.13 

.20 

54 

12-inch                                                                 

.13 

.22 

69 

14-inch.                                               

.1795 

.29 

62 

16-inch...                                                                                 

.  1995 

.37 

85 

654 


TAEIFF   HEABING8. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTEBY. 

Comparative  piecework  prices — Continued. 

THROWING. 


England. 

America. 

Increase. 

Bowls: 
24s                 

SO.  0315 

10.05 

Percent. 

59 

30s  

.0252 

.04 

59 

36s                 

.021 

.035 

67 

42s                                                 

.0179 

.035 

96 

Mugs: 
24s        

.0315 

.055 

74 

30s                                 

.0252 

.045 

78 

36s          

.021 

.04 

90 

42s  

.0179 

.03 

67 

Sugars' 
24s              

.0787 

.12 

52 

30s  

.0787 

.12 

52 

TURNING. 


Bowls: 
24s  out  or  mold    

$0.319 

$0.06 

88 

30s  out  or  mold                           .        .... 

.0255 

.055 

115 

36s  out  or  mold     

.021 

.05 

119 

42s  out  or  mold                            

.0182 

.05 

174 

Mugs: 
24s                              

.0319 

.085 

166 

30s         

.0255 

.075 

194 

36s                              

.021 

.07 

233 

42s       

.0182 

.06    | 

229 

Sugars: 
24s  with  cars  complete                    ... 

.159 

.195! 

23 

30s  with  ears  complete  ,_  

.159 

.185 

17 

Nonproducing  help. — The  following  table  gives  a  fair  average  of  the  wages  paid  to 
the  nonproducing  help.  Individual  ability  and  consequent  worth  necessarily  differ 
greatly  both  in  England  and  America.  In  some  branches,  however,  the  rates  of  wages 
are  accurately  fixed  under  the  day-wage-piecework  system,  there  being  a  fixed 
rate  of  wages  per  day  with  a  certain  amount  of  work  to  be  performed  for  that  amount 
of  wage. 

Comparative  wages  per  week,  nonproducing  help. 


England. 

America. 

Bookkeepers  

$7.75 

$20  79 

Clerks  

4.70 

13  75 

Boys      

1  50 

6  00 

Teamsters  

6.00 

12  00 

Engineers  

8  80 

18  00 

Laborers  .               .... 

5.20 

11  99 

Kiln  firemen.. 

12  00 

20  00 

1  learl  biscuit  brushers  

2.26 

S  00 

Head  glost  dressers.    .. 

2  26 

9  oo 

Biscuit  brushers  

1  52 

6  82 

Glost  dressers. 

1  52 

7  94 

Olost  warehousemen  

7.50 

15  00 

Selectors  

3.35 

9  00 

Slip-makers  

6  48 

16  50 

Pugmill  men  

4.74 

12  00 

Dippers  help: 
Women  ...          

2.26 

7.42 

Bovs  

1  68 

4  73 

Watchmen  .       .   . 

6  48 

15  00 

Superintendent  .             

14.40 

25  00 

SCHEDULE   B. 


655 


PARAGRAPHS   92  94— POTTERY. 

OUTPUT   OF   ONE   POTTERY   PLANT   FOR   ONE    YEAR. 

To  give  a  still  more  accurate  idea  of  the  cost  of  producing  earthenware  in  England 
and  America,  I  have  taken  from  the  books  of  a  factory  the  actual  output  of  their  white- 
ware  production,  the  comparison  being  confined  to  staple  goods,  and  values  figured  on 
journeymen's  wages.  This  comparison,  however,  is  extremely  favorable  to  the 
foreign  manufacturer  on  account  of  a  larger  proportion  of  the  goods  being  produced  by 
apprentice  labor  than  is  the  case  with  the  American  production.  These  figures  leave 
out  of  consideration  the  apprenticeship  question  entirely. 

Total  actual  output  in  one  pottery  plant,  for  one  year. 


Articles. 

Dozen. 

Articles. 

Dozen. 

Bakers: 
24-inch         .                                .... 

450 

Casseroles,  covered: 
7-inch  

100 

3-inch       

75 

8-inch  

125 

4-inch  

25 

9-inch  

50 

5-inch                       

25 

Comports,  8-inch... 

100 

5-inch,  single  

200 

Cuspidors,  2s  

100 

6-inch  

300 

Covered  dishes: 

7-inch  

850 

7-inch  

200 

8-inch 

550 

8-inch.    .                   ... 

800 

9-inch       .         

375 

Creams,  30s  

700 

lOJ-inch    

500 

Coffees: 

Bowls: 

Unhd  

4,000 

30s.,  oyster  

800 

Hand  

10,000 

24s            .             

1,000 

Teas       .                        .  . 

20,000 

30s  

3,500 

Dishes: 

36s          . 

1,000 

4-inch.  .      

125 

Plates' 

5-inch 

300 

4-inch       .      .         .  .      .         .  ... 

500 

6-inch                 

130 

5-inch  

5,000 

7-inch  

400 

6-inch                          .                   

1,000 

8-inch 

275 

7-inch     

1,500 

9-inch                 

450 

8-inch  

10,900 

10-inch,  

450 

6-inch  deep    

1,000 

11-inch 

450 

7-inch,  deep  

8,000 

12-inch..           

400 

8-inch  deep 

1,000 

13-inch 

275 

5-inch,  festoon  

1,500 

14-inch 

400 

6-inch,  festoon  ."  

5,000 

16-inch              

250 

7-inch,  festoon  

7,500 

Ice  creams: 

7  500 

3J-inch 

1,500 

500 

1,000 

8-inch  festoon  deep 

3,000 

Jugs: 

Cake 

1,000 

4s  

25 

Cup 

500 

6s..                      

300 

Sauce  boats 

500 

12s  

625 

Saucers: 

24s  

1,500 

Coffee 

10,000 

30s..              

700 

Coffee  festoon 

3,000 

36s  

1,000 

Tea  festoon                    

12,000 

Mugs: 

Tea 

22,  000 

24s.  .            

300 

Fruit 

30s  

2,200 

3,000 

36s                                   

400 

Festoon                        

5,000 

Nappies: 

3  000 

5-inch    

200 

6-inch                                      .... 

3.50 

24s 

450 

7-inch  

1,200 

30s 

1,000 

8-inch  

1,800 

1,000 

9-inch  

400 

100 

10-inch  

300 

100 

Vases        

1,500 

100 

Basins,  9s  

2,000 

125 

Chambers,  9s  

1,500 

100 

Ewers,  6s  

1,500 

100 

Ewers,  mouth  

600 

1,000 

Slop  jars  

150 

Butters: 
Covered  

400 

Individual.  .  . 

4,000 

656 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPHS  92~94— POTTERY. 


The  total  cost  in  England  for  producing  this  ware  was  $13,634.69,  while  in  America 
the  cost  was  $21,738.95.  Adding  to  these  figures  the  other  labor  cost,  we  have  the 
total  wage  cost,  as  follows: 

Total  wage  cost. 


Branches. 

England. 

America. 

Potters'  wages  ..        

$13,634.69 

$21,738.95 

3,477.00 

12,  186.  00 

Mold  makers'  wages  

1,129.00 

2,  450.  00 

Saggar  makers'  wages                                    

861.00 

2,  243.  00 

All  other  wages  

5,782.50 

14,054.33 

Office  and  management.  .  . 

3.018.00 

6.240.00 

Total I    27, 902. 19 


58,912.28 


The  material  used  in  the  production  of  the  above  quantities  of  ware  are  given  below: 

Material  costs. 


Description. 

England. 

America. 

$17,910.00 

$22,156  00 

Materials  not  entering  into  same                      ...             

12,  102.  00 

20,840.00 

Total                                           

30,  012.  00 

42,996.00 

Adding  to  the  above  the  other  elements  entering  into  the  cost,  we  have  the  following 

comparative  total  cost  of  the  product: 

Total  cost. 


Description. 

England. 

America. 

Labor  

$27,  902.  19 

$58,  912.  28 

Material. 

30,012  00 

42,  996  00 

Interest  .                 

5,  055.  00 

9,  430.  00 

Insurance.  .  . 

300  00 

1  500  00 

Taxes  

550.00 

1,450.00 

Gas  and  water 

830  00 

975  00 

Total  .  .  . 

64.649.19 

115.  263.  28 

CONDITIONS. 

All  hough  the  difference  given  above  appears  large,  it  does  not  fully  indicate  the 
real  difference,  largely  on  account  of  1he  conditions  surrounding  the  manufacture  of 
pottery  in  England  and  America: 

(!)  The  age  limit  of  children  working  in  the  potteries  under  certain  conditions  is  10 
years  in  England,  and  14  years  in  America. 

(2)  The  ra'.io  of  male  to  female  labor  being  80  females  to  100  males  in  England,  while 
in  America  the  ratio  is  19  females  to  100  males.  The  following  quotation  from  the 
English  Board  of  Trade  report  would  indicate  that  the  American  potter  need  not  look 
for  any  help  in  this  direction.  On  page  Xo.  141  of  said  report  is  the  following: 

"It  appears  that  women  and  girls  are  very  largely  employed  in  the  pottery  industry. 
In  some  branches  cf  the  irade  they  being  employed  to  an  increased  extent  upon  which 
a  few  years  ago  was  performed  almost  exclusively  by  men.  They  are  now  actively 
engaged  in  competition  with  male  labor,  and  as  they  are  able  to  do  similar  work  for 
lower  wages,  they  arc  gradually  driving  men  from  certain  sections  of  the  trade.  The 
reason  given  for  this  is  the  usual  one-  women  do  the  work  as  satisfactorily  as  the  men, 
and  the  culling  of  prices  in  Irade  competition  drives  the  employer  to'resort  to  low 
paid  lalior." 


SCHEDULE   B. 


657 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

(3)  In  England  the  piecework  wages  are  paid  for  "good  from  oven."    That  is,  the 
workman  is  paid  only  for  such  ware  as  comes  from  the  kiln  in  perfect  condition.     In 
America  the  ware  is  paid  for  "good  from  hand,"  the  manufacturer  assuming  all  the 
loss.    The  English  manufacturer  considers  this  method  worth  about  5  per  cent  of  their 
clay  shop  cost. 

(4)  The  apprenticeship  system  is  a  great  help  to  the  English  manufacturer  on 
account  of  his  long  term  of  years  of  apprenticeship,  having  the  use  of  the  boys  during 
that  period  at  very  low  wages,  and  the  further  benefit  of  having  well-trained  operatives 
at  the  end  of  their  term  of  apprenticeship,  whereas  in  America  the  trade-union  rules 
restrict  the  number  of  apprentices,  limiting  the  time  and  consequent  efficiency  on 
entering  the  trade  as  a  joxirneyman. 

DECORATING. 

The  difference  in  cost  of  decorating  is  becoming  more  and  more  important,  because 
of  the  fact  that  from  75  per  cent  to  80  per  cent  of  the  output  of  the  American  factory  is 
now  decorated.  The  following  tables  indicate  the  difference  in  cost  of  decorating 
materials,  and  labor  cost: 

Decorating  materials. 


England. 

America. 

Printing  paper,  per  pound  

$0.16 

SO.  33 

Decalcomania  sheets,  each  

.15-.  20 

.20-.  25 

Decorating  colors,  per  pound: 

1.37 

1  50 

Turkish  blue,  No.  399  

6.84 

8.44 

Turkish  blue  No  3             

11.40 

14.09 

French  brown,  No.  67c  

3.65 

4.50 

Golden  brown,  No.  25d  

2.28 

3.38 

Gordon  green  No  1                     .                      ... 

1.83 

2.25 

Olive  green  No.  158  

2.74 

3.38 

Maroon,  No.  3          

9.12 

11.50 

Maroon,  No.  321  

13.68 

18.00 

Pink  No  6                                                            .                 

4.10 

5.07 

Pink  No.  25        .  ...             

2.74 

3.38 

Red,  No.  280  

1.82 

2.40 

Red  ,  No.  8  

1.37 

1.69 

Decorator's  weekly  earnings. 


England. 

America 
(55  hours). 

Superintendent  

$7.  20-114.  44 

$24.53 

3.  60-    4.  80 

12.21 

Printers                   

5.82-    7.20 

19.19 

Transferrers  (girls)  

2.40-    3.60 

10.89 

1.92-    2.40 

6.71 

Cutters  (girls)     

1.08 

4.73 

2.40 

7.81 

Liners  and  gilders  (women)                              .         

4.08 

14.52 

Gilders  fine  work  (men)      

7.20-    9.60 

18.42 

6.00-    9.60 

18.42 

9.60-  12.00 

30.00 

4.  80-    6.  00 

8.40 

21.45 

Decalcomania  transfprrers  (girls)          

2.40-    3.60 

10.28 

$1.80  per  kiln. 

3.50 

The  decorators'  wages,  like  those  of  the  potters,  are  based  on  piecework  prices  and 
show  a  corresponding  difference  in  rate  paid,  so  that  in  either  the  production  of  the 
white  ware  or  the  decorating  of  the  same  the  question  of  greater  efficiency  of  the  one 
or  the  other  is  of  no  consequence  in  considering  the  cost  of  production.  • 


78959°— VOL  1—13- 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

ENGLISH  METHOD  OP  ARRIVING  AT  COST. 


I  have  taken  the  following  table  from  the  English  Manufacturing  Potters'  Associa- 
tion's book  of  costs,  inserting  therein  corresponding  American  costs,  which  again 
proves  the  previous  tables  showing  the  cost  of  production: 

Cost  for  20  dozen  7-inch  plates. 


English 
cost. 

United 
States 
equiva- 
lent. 

Ameri- 
can cost. 

Clay,  taken  in  biscuit: 
168  pounds  at  3s.  6d.  per  hundredweight.  

*.    d. 
5     3 

$1.26 

168  pounds,  at  1  cent  per  pound  

SI.  68 

Making: 

2      6 

.60 

Actual  wages,  4J  cents        

.90 

Biscuit  (first  fire): 
6  saggers,  at  2Jd.  each  to  cover  all  cost  of  biscuit  

1      3 

1.86 
.30 

2.58 

9  saggers,  at  10  cents  each  to  cover  all  cost  of  biscuit  

.90 

Loss  in  biscuit  6J  per  cent        ".  

1     7 

2.16 
.14 

3.48 
.22 

Glaze: 
13  pounds,  at  l§d.  per  pound      

1    10 

.44 

.65 

Glost  (second  fire): 
13  saggers  at  4d.  each     .        ... 

4      4 

1.04 

13  saggers,  at  16  cents  each  

2.40 

ptiltSj  spnrSj  H"fl  pins  .  .  .     

1      9 

.18 

.25 

Loss  in  glost,  10  per  cent  

16      6 
1      7J 

3.96 
.39 

7.00 
.70 

Add  for  working  expenses,  33J  per  cent 

18      li 
6        4 

4.35 
1  45 

7.70 
2  57 

24      2 

5.80 

10.27 

American  cost  77  per  cent  higher  than  English. 

RATE    PER    HOUR. 

Realizing  how  largely  the  actual  number  of  hours  worked  during  a  given  nominal 
day  enters  into  the  cost  of  the  product,  and  knowing  how  greatly  the  days  differ  in 
length  in  the  different  countries,  I  secured  from  over  20  of  our  largest  manufacturers 
the  actual  number  of  hours  worked  by  the  various  operatives  covering  a  given  length 
of  time.  These  figures  show  that  4,967  employees — men,  women,  girls,  and  boys, 
skilled  and  unskilled — worked  469,516  hours  (actual  time  being  kept)  and  earned 
$126,560.74,  or  an  average  of  24.83  cents  per  hour.  Segregating  these  figures,  I  find 
the  following  average: 

Skilled  men  earn  at  the  rate  of  $0.405  per  hour;  unskilled  men  earn  at  the  rate  of 
$0.225  per  hour;  skilled  women  earn  at  the  rate  of  $0.221  per  hour;  unskilled  women 
earn  at  the  rate  of  $0.1:58  per  hour;  unskilled  boys  earn  at  the  rate  of  $0.162  per  hour; 
unskilled  girls  earn  at  the  rate  of  $0.086  per  hour. 

Not  having  as  accurate  data  for  England  and  other  foreign  countries,  but  knowing 
that  at  the  low  rate  of  wages  every  hour  of  the  day  must  be  occupied  to  produce  the 
meager  wages  earned  by  them,  I  find  the  following  result: 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  the  United  States  per  hour $0.  2483 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  England  per  hour 11 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  Germany  per  hour 0913 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  Austria  per  hour 086 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  France  per  hour 0825 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  Belgium  per  hour 0693 

Average  rate  of  wages  in  Holland  per  hour 065 

A  v-praen  rat  c  of  wages  in  Japan  per  hour 025 


SCHEDULE  B. 


659 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

CONTINENTAL  POTTING. 

Following  the  same  general  outline,  I  give  brief  comparisons  on  the  Continent: 

HOLLAND. 
MATERIALS. 


First,  earthenware. 


Holland. 

America. 

Ballclay  

$5.27 

$8  80 

China  clay  .        ..           .                 . 

7  39 

12  00 

Quartz  (ground  sand)  

2.40 

7.00 

Cornwall  stone            

9  60 

13  44 

Saggar  clay  

1.20 

2.75 

Wad  clay  

1.20 

1.62 

Coal  (English)  

2.60 

3.45 

LABOR. 

Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


Holland. 

America 
(60  hours). 

Potters    .          

$4.80 

$26.10 

5.24 

19.98 

4.80 

26.16 

1.75 

None. 

3.60 

13.32 

4.80 

33.00 

1.80 

None. 

Saggar  makers         

4.80 

27.54 

Piecework  prices. 


Holland.      America. 

per  dozen.. 

$0.0144            $0.0475 

do  

.0048               .03 

do.... 

.0048                .0325 

....do.... 

.0144                .035 

do.... 

.48                    .90 

...do  

.30                    .70 

do.... 

.21                    .68 

BELGIUM. 

Materials  practically  the  same  as  Holland. 

LABOR. 
Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


Belgium. 

America 
(58J  hours). 

$5.48 
7.48 
4.32 
5.18 
2.00 

$25.44 
29.48 
17.25 
25.50 
None. 
20.41 
22.00 
12.  9S 
32.17 
None. 
26.85 

Kiln  placers  (women)  

Printers  
Decorators  

6.72 
4.32 

Dippers  (men)  

f>.02 
2.52 
5.02 

Satreir  makers  ...                                                           

660 


TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 


PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTEBY. 

GERMANY. 
Materials. 

The  following  table  will  indicate  the  difference  in  cost  of  materials: 

Materials. 


Germany. 

America. 

China  clay  (English)  

$8.11 

$12.00 

Ball  clay  (English)  

5.98 

8.80 

Cornwall  stone                

10.20 

13.44 

Quartz  (ground  flints)  

9.52 

11.76 

Saggar  clay                      

3.21 

3.82 

Saggar  clay,  mixed  

2.62 

2.75 

Wad  clay  

1.80 

1.62 

Coal 

2.  62-4.  75 

Coal  (value  as  mixed)  

3.75 

3.45 

White  lead....                 ....             

.04* 

•  05| 

Zinc  oxide  

.06i 

.08} 

B  oracic  acid  .                                   .         

.041 

Paris  white  

.43 

.65 

Printing  paper                                                                                

.16 

.33 

Decalcomania  sheets                                                             

16.20 

80.  20-.  30 

LABOR. 

Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


Germany. 

America 
(60  hours). 

Jiggormen             .          .                                                            

$7.57 

$30.72 

Throwers  -.                              

7.44 

29.54 

Turners                                                                                                       

7.20 

28.74 

Pressers  .  .                           .             

8.09 

20.22 

Castors  (men)                                                                                                 .  .  . 

7.68 

23.70 

Casters  (women)   

4.86 

18.50 

Dippers  (men) 

7.23 

33.00 

Dippers  (women)  

3.47 

None. 

Saggar  makers  

6.36 

27.54 

Mold  makers     ..                                                      

8.20 

30  24 

Packers  

5.86 

26.16 

Warehousemen  .  .                                            

5.38 

13.08 

Kiln  placers  (men)  

7.85 

26.16 

Kiln  placers  (  women)  .                 

3.47 

None. 

Firemen  (skilled)  

5.  86-10.  08 

19.32 

Firemen,  decorating  kilns  ..                       

6.48 

28.50 

Printers 

6.56 

20.94 

Hand  painters.  -     .          ...                                                       

7.20 

30.00 

Transfcrrers  (women) 

2.58 

11.22 

Laborers  (men),  heavy  work   .                                                                  

5.26 

13.32 

Laborers  (men)  ordinary 

3.36 

9.50 

Laborers  (women) 

3.22 

None. 

Selectors  

4.56 

12.00 

Germany. 

America 
(GO  hours). 

Plates,  S  inch  

$0.0286 

$0.  0625 

Plates,  7  inch 

.0254 

.055 

Plates,  (i  inch    

.0190 

.05 

Plates,  5  inch 

.017,5 

.045 

Cups,  h;m<llei|  

.  0239 

.0675 

Saucers 

.  0165 

.03 

Bowls  24s   finished 

.0299 

.06 

Bowls,  30s  fini-Oied 

.0299 

.055 

Bowls,  3(U,  finished 

.0299 

.05 

Bowls  24s,  fmi-ihod.  nmiH 

.0588 

.13 

Bowls,  30s,  finished    tinned 

.0588 

.12 

Bowls,  30s,  finished,  turned  .   .    . 

.  058* 

.  11 

I'us^eroles,  s  inch 

.30 

1.06 

Teapots,  complete,  jiiiiif'd  .    -                                               .          .              

.24 

.68 

Te:ipol  ;.  i  Minplcii',  |.  jr.,  I'd 

.44! 

1.00 

;;<Hjp  tniveii   .  '.I  iin-li  n\  ;il 

.  71  4 

2.76 

i  >v  I<T  tiirivii   .  Hi  inch  .             ..                                      ... 

.  543 

1.50 

i  1]  -pid:M    .li)|i  ';ir-. 

.  7t>7 

1.29 

I  'll     IU'1"!     .1H1  !<i.i|l  .  .  .  . 

.12 

.45 

SCHEDULE   B. 


661 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94 —POTTER Y. 


CONTINENTAL  CHINA    AND   PORCELAIN. 


Iii  the  production  of  chinaware  the  labor  element  enters  into  the  total  cost  in  larger 
proportions  to  the  materials  than  it  does  in  earthenware.  In  consequence  of  this  fact, 
the  ratio  of  labor  cost  to  the  cost  of  materials  is  even  greater  in  the  American  product 
than  has  been  shown  in  the  earthenware  comparisons. 


FRANCE — MATERIALS. 


The  French  manufacturers  are  furnished  with  their  body  and  glazed  materials  mixed 
ready  for  use.  In  the  following  table  the  American  body  and  glazed  materials  have 
been  valued  in  the  same  way,  viz,  the  prepared  body  and  glazed. 

Comparative  material  cost. 


France. 

America. 

Chinaclay..     .          

$10  13 

$12  50 

Prepared  body  ($13.51  to  J23.Ui),  as  used  

19.30 

22.00 

Prepared  glaze  ($17.37  to  $23.  16)  as  used        .          ..                    

19.30 

35  00 

Prepared  saggar  clay,  as  used  

3.86 

5.10 

Coal  ($5.02  to  $6.75)  as  used            .... 

5.79 

3  45 

Plaster  per  300-pound  barrel  

1.41 

1.90 

Wood  

7.00 

4.00 

Liquid  gold           

8.68 

10.50 

Transfjr  sheets  (average)  

.14 

.20 

LABOR. 
Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


France. 

America. 

$6.75 

$25.00 

Saucer  makers        

6.36 

24.00 

Cup  makers      

6.75 

26.50 

5.79 

23.00 

Casters  (women)       

4.24 

None. 

3.08 

None. 

Handlers  (men)         

None. 

20.00 

6.17 

22.00 

Dish  makers      

6.7> 

24.50 

8.68 

26.00 

8.68 

22.00 

5.79 

18.00 

4.82 

20.00 

4.63 

30.00 

2.89 

None. 

5.79 

22.00 

Saggar  makers        

6.75 

27.50 

6.75 

22.00 

5.21 

18.00 

3.08 

9.00 

8.68 

25.00 

4.80 

15.00 

3.  86 

7.40 

9.  05-15.  24 

20.  00-50.  00 

662 


TAKIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Comparative  piecework  prices. 

FESTOON  OR  FANCY  SHAPES. 


- 

France. 

America. 

Plates: 

$0.081 

SO.  12 

.069 

.095 

.065 

.08 

.072 

.12 

6J  inches  deep     

.061 

.10 

.047 

.05 

Saucers  "            .      

.047 

.05 

Cups,  hand: 
Teas                                             .  .           

.05 

.15 

Dishes: 
9  inches  (pressed)  

.204 

.27 

.278 

.30 

12  inches  (pressed)  

.36 

.63 

.461 

.63 

16  inches  (pressed)  

.552 

.75 

.324 

.52 

Boup  tureens  (pressed)  

1.50 

3.75 

Covered  dishes  (pressed)      

.924 

1.70 

Casseroles  (pressed)  

.972 

1.70 

Sauce  boat  and  stand  (pressed)  

.924 

1.55 

.162 

.33 

Covered  butters  and  drs.  (pressed  )  

.336 

.60 

.346 

1.12 

Creams  (pressed)            

.276 

.75 

PLAIN  EDGE  OR  HOTEL  SHAPES. 


SO.  062 
.051 
.047 
.056 
.043 
.041 

.074 

.096 

.121 

.137 

.162 

.242 

.30 

.393 


CASTING,  FINISHING,  AND  HANDLING. 


Dishes: 
9-inch  

$0  112 

$0  27 

10-inch  

.151 

.30 

12-inch  

.198 

.53 

14-inch  

.253 

.63 

16-inch  

.303 

.75 

Bakrr's,  SJ-ini'h  .  . 

.178 

.52 

Soup  tureons   

.825 

3  75 

Covered  dishes  

.508 

1.70 

Casseroles  

.534 

1  70 

Sauc-p  boats  

.508 

1.55 

Pickles  

.089 

33 

Sugars,  (U  

.19 

1.12 

Creams,  fit  

.151 

75 

SCHEDULE  B. 


663 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Comparative  cost  of  materials. 


Germany. 


America. 


China  clay 

Feldspar 

Quartz  (ground  flints) 

Quartz  (ground  sand) 

Saggar  clay 

Wad  clay 


Sand  (raw) 

Coal  ............................... 

Plaster  of  Paris  (300-pound  barrel)  . 


$10.71 
7.73 
9.10 
4.30 
2.85 
1.62 
1.43 
3.69 
.45 


$13.25 
11.70 
11.70 
8.40 
2.75 
1.02 
3.70 
3.45 
1.90 


OVERHEAD  CHARGES  AND  GENERAL  EXPENSES. 

The  overhead  charges  and  expenses  are  calculated  at  from  26  to  33J  per  cent  of 
the  total  cost  of  materials  and  labor.  These  figures  correspond  very  closely  with  the 
English  method  of  arriving  at  cost. 

GERMANY. 

A  variety  of  materials  of  the  same  general  character  are  used  in  Germany,  and  for 
comparative  purposes  I  have  taken  those  most  closely  resembling  in  kind  and  quality 
the  materials  used  in  America.  For  example,  German  coal  can  be  purchased  as  low 
as  $2.62  per  ton.  Coal  in  Germany  ranges  from  $2.62  to  $6.19  per  ton.  I  have  taken 
a  grade  of  coal,  or  a  mixture  of  coals,  which  most  nearly  corresponds  with  the  American 
coal,  valued  at  $3.69  per  ton. 

LABOR. 

The  pottery  industry  is  scattered  over  the  entire  country  of  Germany,  and  the  wages 
vary  somewhat  in  different  localities.  The  figures  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
Sonneberg,  confirm  my  figures  and  show  that  I  am  giving  high  values.  This  table 
is  as  follows: 

Average  weekly  earnings  by  age. 

[Time,  60  hours  per  week.] 

Males  under  16  years: 

Day  wage $2.  30 

Piecework 2.  88 

Males,  16  to  20  years: 

Day  wage 2.88 

Piecework 4.  32 

Males,  over  20  years: 

Day  wage 3.  60 

Piecework  (maximum) 7.  20 

Females  under  16  years: 

Day  wage 2. 16 

Piecework 2.  88 

Females,  16  to  20  years: 

Day  wage 2. 16 

Piecework 2.  64 

Females  over  20  years: 

Day  wage 2.  16 

Piecework 3. 00 

Consul  General  Dillingham's  report  also  corroborates  these  figures: 

Consul  General  Dillingham's  report: 

Jiggermen  and  pressers  (tableware) $5.  99 

Casters  (females)  (tableware) 4-39 

Kiln  placers  and  burners 4.  76 

Decorators  (tableware  and  fine  china) 5.  62 


CG4 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 
PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 


In  the  following  table  I  give  the  range  of  wages,  but  for  comparative  purposes  use 
the  maximum  figures: 

Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


Germany. 

Maxi- 
mum. 

America. 

Jiggerers: 
Men              

$4.  46-$8.  00 

$8.00 

$25.00 

Women.  

2.33-  4.85 

4.85 

None. 

Casters: 
Men  

4.06-  7.68 

7.68 

23.00 

Women    

2.33-  4.86 

4.86 

None. 

Handlers: 
Women  

1.93-  2.43 

2.43 

None. 

Men  

None. 

None. 

20.00 

Dish  makers  

4.46-  6.78 

6.78 

24.00 

Pressers          ....                                .        ..        .                 

4.  46-  6.  78 

6.78 

22.00 

Throwers  

4.  46-  8.  12 

8.12 

26.00 

Turners 

3.26-  8.12 

8.12 

22.00 

Kiln  men  

4.84-  6.24 

6.24 

20.00 

Kiln  placers,  women  

2.78-  3.47 

3.47 

None. 

Firemen  and  burners  

5.86-10.08 

10.08 

22.00 

DiPS£: 

4.  56-  6.  00 

6.00 

30.00 

Women  

2.78-  3.47 

3.47 

None. 

Saggar  makers                                                                                 ...  . 

6.  36-  7.  40 

7.40 

27.50 

Mold  makers     

8.22-8.42 

8.42 

22.00 

Packers 

4.  86-  5.  75 

5.75 

18.00 

Laborers: 
Men       .          •.  

3.60-4.50 

4.50 

9.00 

Women  

2.22-  2.38 

2.38 

None. 

Painters: 
Cheap  work 

3.38-  5.26 

5.26 

18.00 

Fine  work  .  .                                 .          .           

5.26-  9.60 

9.60 

30.00 

Printers.. 

4.06-  6.56 

6.56 

21.00 

Transferors  '     

1.90-  2.75 

2.75 

7.40 

Gilders: 
<  ;  iris  

1.90-  2.57 

2.57 

7.50 

Men  (fine  work)  

4.06-  6.56 

6.56 

25.00 

Selectors  

3.04-  3.57 

3.57 

9.00 

Foremen  ... 

3.57-  6.56 

6.56 

18.00 

PIECEWORK    PRICES. 

The  table  following  gives  the  actual  piecework  prices  paid  in  certain  of  the  Ger- 
man factories.  The  price  given  indicates  the  net  prices  paid  for  the  completed 
article.  It  is  the  practice  in  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  German  factories  to  deduct  per- 
centage for  the  use  of  the  machinery,  steam,  etc.  In  some  cases  as  much  as  15  per 
cent  is  charged  for  this  service. 


SCHEDULE  B. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Comparative  piecework  prices. 


665 


Qennany. 

America. 

Plates: 
8-iuch,  festoon  

$0.06 

$0.12 

7-i  rich,  festoon  .  .. 

.053 

09} 

0-inch,  festoon  

.045 

.06 

5-inch,  festoon  

.023 

.051 

8-inch,  festoon,  deep  

.06 

.13 

7-inch,  festoon,  deep  

.053 

.11 

C-inch,  festoon,  deep  

.045 

.10 

8-inch,  plain  

.048 

.08 

7-inch,  plain  

.04 

.07 

6-inch,  plain  

.024 

.06 

5-inch,  plain           .                   .. 

.019 

.05 

8-inch,  plain,  deep  

.048 

.09 

7-inch,  plain,  deep  

.04 

.08 

G-inch,  plain,  deep  

.024 

.07 

Fruit  saucers  

.021 

.05 

Ice  creams  

.021 

.05 

Oatmeals  

.024 

.0? 

Cups  and  saucers: 
Ordinary  

.06 

.17| 

Thin  

.09 

.20 

Cups  only: 
Ordinary  

.04 

.121 

Thin          

.068 

.15 

Saucers.                                                              

.021 

.05 

Dishes: 
2  and  2  J  inch                                                                    .               

.019 

.09 

3-inch                                                               

.022 

.09 

10-inch               

.097 

.18  . 

12-inch  

.15 

.22 

14-inch                                       

.195 

.29 

16-inch                                 

.245 

.37 

Covered  dishes  (cast)                                     

.72 

1.11 

Covered  dishes,  round  (cast)        

.59 

1.06 

.80 

2.76 

Sauce  boat  and  stand            

.146 

.98 

Pickles  

.097 

.28 

Salads                                 .                                

.117 

.75 

Teapots     

.25 

1.00 

Sugars                                                                       

.122 

.60 

Creams                  .                              

.097 

.42  . 

AUSTRIA. 

The  following  is  a  comparative  table  of  the  materials  used  in  Austria: 

Materials. 


Austria. 

America. 

Kaolin: 
Best                

$12.82 

$14.  78 

Second  grade          

12.00 

12.00 

Feldspar                                                 

7.10 

11.76 

14.21 

Quartz: 
Austrian       .     

6.18 

8.40 

9.27 

11.76 

Saggar  clay         

1.62 

2.75 

.80 

1.62 

Coal: 

1.22 

2.84 

3.44 

2.84 

3.45 

Wood  per  cord                       

4.38 

4.00 

•04A 

-05i 

Oxide  of  zinc,  per  pound          .  

.06^ 

.12 

•04^ 

.06J 

9.00 

10.50 

.06-$0.10 

.  10-$0.  20 

Plaster  of  Paris  per  300  pounds                           barrels  .  . 

.60 

1.90 

.43 

.05 

666 


TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94^-POTTERY. 

Labor — Comparative  weekly  earnings. 


Austria. 

America. 

Dish  makers  

$4.46-47.10 

$7.10 

$24.50 

Jiggerers: 
Men  

4  06-  6.09 

6.09 

25.00 

Women  .            ..       .                   

2.  03-  4.  87 

4.87 

None. 

Casters: 
Men  

4.06-  6.09 

6.09 

23.00 

Women  

2.03-  4.06 

4.06 

None. 

Handlers: 
Women  

1.60-  2.03 

2.03 

None. 

Men.  

None. 

None. 

20.00 

Pressers  .                  

4.46-  7.10 

7.10 

22.00 

Throwers  :... 

2.84-  8.12 

8.12 

26.00 

Turners  

3.26-  8.12 

8.12 

22.00 

Kiln  placers: 
Men        

3.26-  6.09 

6.09 

20.00 

Women  

2.  64-  3.  65 

3.65 

None. 

Firemen  and  burners     ..                                     ....        

7.20-  8.00 

8.00 

22.00 

Dippers: 
Men  

None. 

None. 

30.00 

Women..    .                                                                            . 

2.  64-  3.  65 

3.65 

None. 

Sagger  makers  .'  

3.65-  8.12 

8.12 

27.50 

Mold  makers    ... 

4.  06-  8.  12 

8.12 

22.00 

Packers  

3.25-  4.06 

4.06 

18.00 

Laborers: 
Men    

2.43-4.06 

4.06 

9.00 

Women  

2.03-  2.44 

2.44 

None. 

3  65-10  15 

10.15 

30  00 

Printers  

4.06-  6.09 

6.09 

21.00 

.Tran<?ferrpr<!     ........ 

1.60-3.65 

3.65 

7.40 

Gilders: 
Girls  

1.60-  3.04 

3.04 

7.50 

Men  (fine  gold  work)  

8.  12-12.  18 

12.18 

25.00 

Selectors  .  .  . 

2.03-3.04 

3.04 

9.00 

Foremen  

3.04-  7.10 

7.10 

18.00 

Piecework  prices — -Thin  goods. 


Austria. 

America. 

Plates: 
8-inch  

$0  048 

JO  12 

7-inch  

.044 

.091 

6-inch  

039 

06 

5-inch  

.034 

.05* 

8-iuch,  deep  

.048 

.13 

7-inch,  deep  

.044 

.111 

6-inch,  deep  

.039 

.10 

Fruit  saucers  

021 

.05 

Icecreams  

.021 

.05 

Oatmeals  

024 

.07 

Cups,  h'd: 
Ordinary  

.044 

.12* 

Thin  

068 

.15 

Saucers: 
Tea  

021 

.05 

Cofl'ee  

021 

05 

DLshes: 
10-inch  

097 

27 

12-inch  

.146 

.33 

14-inch  

195 

63 

16-inch  

243 

73 

Covered  dishes,  8-inch  

759 

1  70 

Soup  tureens,  9-inch 

779 

3.75 

Sauce  boats  and  stands  

.146 

1.55 

Pickles  

039 

33 

Salads  

170 

1  00 

Teapots  

146 

2  00 

Suears  

122 

1  12* 

Creams  

097 

.75 

SCHEDULE   B. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Piecework  prices— Ordinary  goods. 


667 


Austria. 

America 

Plates: 
8-inch.  

JO  04 

to  os 

7-inch.  

039 

07 

6-inch  

034 

06 

5-inch  *.  

03 

05 

8-inch,  deep  

04 

09 

7-inch,  deep  

039 

08 

6-inch,  deep  

034 

07 

Fruit  saucers  

015 

031 

Ice  creams  

015 

Mi 

Oatmeals  

02 

'05 

Cups,  h'd,  ordinary  

031 

11 

Saucers  

015 

04 

Dishes: 
2  and  2J  inch  

019 

09 

3-inch  

022 

09 

10-inch  

095 

18 

12-inch  

135 

22 

14-  inch  

.185 

29 

16-inch  

22 

37 

Covered  dishes,  8-inch  

.34 

1  11 

Soup  tureens,  9-inch  

.438 

2.76 

Saiiffi  boat,  and  stand 

.146 

98 

Pickles  

.039 

.28 

Salads  

.17 

75 

Teapots  

.146 

1  00 

Sugars  

.122 

60 

Creams  

.097 

.42 

TRADE   CONDITIONS. 

On  the  Continent  of  Europe  pottery  is  made  very  largely  by  female  labor.  Aa 
stated  before,  the  American  potter  employs  on  an  average  of  19  females,  women  and 
girls,  to  100  males,  men  and  boys.  England  employs  80  females  to  100  males,  while 
in  Germany  in  many  of  the  factories  300  females  to  100  males  are  employed. 

SUMMARY. 

Briefly  summarizing  the  results  of  my  investigations,  I  find: 

First.  That  it  is  impossible  to  show  with  absolute  accuracy  the  actual  difference  in 
the  cost  of  production  of  pottery  wares  at  home  and  abroad.  The  figures  I  have 
secured  represent  what  would  be  a  comparatively  accurate  presentation,  if  the  work 
was  all  done  by  journeymen,  working  under  similar  conditions,  but  such  is  not  the 
case.  The  difference  in  cost,  represented  by  the  figures  contained  in  this  report,  is 
great,  but  when  the  difference  in  conditions  is  considered,  the  apprentices,  the  hours 
worked,  the  amount  of  female  and  child  labor  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  regulations  of 
the  American  trade-unions  on  the  other,  a  greater  difference  actually  exists  than,  ia 
possible  to  express  in  figures. 

Second.  That  the  cost  of  producing  pottery  ware  differs  to  a  great  extent  in  the 
several  European  countries,  the  cost  being  largest  in  England,  decreasing  in  the  order 
of  the  countries  named:  Germany,  Belgium,  and  Holland,  in  the  production  of  earth- 
enware, and  England,  France,  Germany,  and  Austria,  in  the  order  named,  in  the 
production  of  china. 

Third.  That  the  facts  and  figures  relative  to  the  producing  cost  of  English  earthen- 
ware being  full  and  accurate,  only  as  above  stated,  on  a  basis  of  journeymen's  wages, 
indicate  that  the  total  cost  in  America  is  about  78  per  cent  higher  than  the  total - 
English  cost. 

Fourth.  That  by  using  the  several  elements  of  English  cost  as  a  basis  the  costs  in 
the  several  continental  countries  can  be  closely  approximated  for  comparison  with 
the  American  cost  figures. 

Fifth  and  finally. — That  in  the  last  analysis  is  the  rate  of  wages  per  hour,  earned 
by  all  the  pottery  employees  in  the  various  countries,  is  the  final  comparison  of 
wage  cost.  The  figures  of  the  various  foreign  countries  are  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  operatives  must  necessarily  work  approximately  the  full  number  of 
hours  to  constitute  a  day's  work.  I  have,  however,  made  some  allowances  for  lost 
time. 

Although  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  actual  amount  of  wages  earned  differs  very 
greatly  in  the  several  countries,  compared  with  the  United  States,  these  differences 


668 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

do  not  account  for  the  still  greater  difference  in  the  rate  per  hour  earned.     The 
greater  difference  is  accounted  for  largely  from  the  fact  that  women,  girls,  and  boys 
do  much  of  the  work  done  by  men  in  the  United  States. 
The  following  figures  are  a  summary  of  the  comparisons: 

Average  rate  of  wages. 


Cents  per  hour. 

United  States 2483 

England 11 

Germany 0913 

Austria 086 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 


Cents  per  hour. 

France 0825 

Belgium 0693 

Holland 065 

Japan 025 

WILLIAM  BURGESS. 


STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  KOIB,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  KOLB.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  Mr.  Seigal  and  I,  as  chair- 
man of  the  committee,  would  like  to  present  this  brief. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  desire  just  to  present  your  brief? 
Mr.  KOLB.  I  think  I  would  like  to  read  it  and  present  some  samples. 

Hon   OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives. 
'  Sir:  Under  the  present  tariff  act  and  all  previous  ones  back  to  the  Wilson  bill  of 
August,  1894,  the  domestic  potteries  have  been  protected  by  an  apparent  nominal 
duty  of  55  per  cent  on  white  and  60  per  cent  on  decorated  china  upon  importation  into 
the  United  States,  but  the  plain  and  incontrovertible  fact  is  that  the  actual  protection 
amounts  to  as  Mgh  as  120.91  per  cent.  Tables  showing  just  how  there  figures  are  arrived 
at  are  herewith  shown,  based  on  importations  of  various  German  china  laid  down  in 
Baltimore  as  a  central  distributing  point: 

EXHIBIT  A. 

One  case  containing  18  dozen  decorated  German  china  cuspidors,  at  3.25  marks, 
equals  77^s  cents  a  dozen.  $13.91. 

Weight,  572  pounds;  measure,  35  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case  

$2.40 
2.11 
2.17 
.35 

9.79 

17.26 
15.16 
15.60 
2.52 

70.37 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (3s  cents  per  100  poui 
Marine  insurance,  customs  entry.!  oss  1  month  ii 
GO  per  rent  duty  on  value  of  goods 

dsj 

$13.91 

CO  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  case  

2.  40 

16.31 

16.82 

120.91 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates,  it  cost  $16.82  to  land  $13.91  worth  of  china 
cuspidors  in  Baltimore.  Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  in  the  present  year, 
1913.  the  ocean  freight  rates  are  31.6  per  cent  higher  than  given  in  this  illustration 
and  exhibits. 

Attached  hereto  and  made  part  of  this  brief  are  other  illustrations  marked  "Ex- 
hibits A  to  P." 

These  illustrations  serve  to  show  the  exorbitant  character  of  the  present  tariff  on 
chinaware  and  how,  owing  to  the  value  of  the  cases  and  packing  being  dutiable  at  the 
rate  of  the  contents  plus  the  geographical  protection,  the  domestic  potters  have  been 
so  favored  far  and  beyond  all  reason  for  revenue  and  all  protection  of  "infant  industry  " 
us  to  steadily  drive  certain  lines  of  import  chinaware  entirely  from  the  market.  The 
leading  potteries  in  this  country  are  continually  adding  to  their  output  and  building 
new  and  larirer  kilns  t<>  lake  care  of  the  enormous  business  they  are  absorbing. 

liv  reference  to  the  illustration  above  it  will  be  noted  that  while  the  actual  value  of 
the  merchandise  is  $13.91,  the  cost  of  the  case,  which  is  $2.40,  is  17.26  per  cent  of  the 


SCHEDULE  B.  669 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 


equal  to  15.60  per  cent.  While  the  tariff  provides  a  tax  of  60  per  cent  on  decorated 
goods,  by  the  inclusion  of  the  value  of  the  case  and  packing  at  the  same  rate  of 
duty,  the  actual  duty  is  $9.79,  equal  to  70.37  per  cent. 

Taking  into  consideration  all  the  various  dutiable  items  as  shown  by  this  illus- 
tration, it  costs  the  importer  $16.82  to  land  $13.91  worth  of  merchandise,  which 
makes  120.91  per  cent  actual  protection  on  the  cost  price  at  factory.  These  are 
startling  figures  and  show  beyond  cavil  or  question  what,  the  real  protection  is 
that  has  favored  these  domestic  potteries  and  is  driving  the  cheaper  grades  of  im- 
ported ware  from  the  market. 

During  the  last  ten  years  the  importation  of  decorated  china  have  on  the  whole  re- 
mained about  stationary;  in  some  years  showing  a  slight  increase,  in  others  a  decrease. 
This,  in  spite  df  the  fact  that  in  these  ten  years  the  population  of  the  United  States  has 
greatly  increased,  and  in  the  same  period  the  production  of  domestic  goods  has  in- 
creased annually,  until  now  it  reaches  a  yearly  output  of  over  $16,000.000.  Attention 
is  particularly  directed  to  the  fact  that  this  growth  and  increase  continued  during  the 
period  when  the  duty  on  decorated  china  was  only  35  per  cent. 

A  cogent  argument  in  the  nature  of  a  concrete  proposition  which  shows  clearly  the 
relative  positions  of  foreign  and  domestic  wares  are  the  exhibits  we  show  herewith, 
giving  the  actual  cost  price  of  certain  articles  laid  down  at  the  port  of  entry,  compared 
with  that  of  similar  merchandise  of  domestic  manufacture.  Attention  is  also  directed 
to  the  fact  that  in  selling  the  domestic  goods  the  domestic  manufacturer  has  his  profit 
and  selling  cost  figured  in  the  prices  stated  and  given  in  the  illustrative  exhibits, 
while  the  prices  given  for  the  imported  goods  dp  not  include  the  importer's  profit  or 
selling  expense,  but  represent  the  bare  cost  of  importation  laid  down  at  the  port  of 
entry.  If  likewise  the  importer's  profit  should  be  added  to  the  price  of  the  imported 
article,  the  difference  in  percentage  would  be  still  more  pronounced.  The  value  at 
which  domestic  goods  are  put  on  the  market  and  the  cost  of  the  imported  article  at  the 
port  of  entry  indicates  plainly  that  the  present  tariff  is  highly  excessive.  These  are 
concrete  examples  and  speak  for  themselves  more  clearly  than  arguments  or  long 
tables  of  figures. 

Difference  in  percentage  of  value  of  imported  and  domestic  articles  based  on  foreign  cost 

and  domestic  selling  price. 

EXHIBIT  l. 

Austrian  dinner  plate,  costing  $1.54^  a  dozen. 

Dinner  set,  represented  by  Exhibit  1,  consisting  of  100  pieces— 12  plates,  8 
inches;  12  plates,  6  inches;  12  coupe  soups,  6  inches;  12  saucers.  4  inches; 
12  individual  butters,  12  teas  and  saucers,  2  covered  dishes,  1  saueeboat 
and  stand,  1  pickle.  1  baker,  1  covered  butter  and  drainer,  1  covered  sugar 
30s.  1  cream  30s,  1  meat  dish,  12  inches;  1  meat  dish,  14  inches — costs  laid 
down  at  Baltimore,  including  all  charges,  excepting  importer's  profit  and 
selling  expense,  $9.69  a  set. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    EXHIBIT  1. 

Domestic  dinner  plate,  selling  at  $0.67£  a  dozen 128. 10 

Dinner  set  of  100  pieces,  same  combination  as  above,  represented  by  Illus- 
trative Exhibit  No.  1,  selling  at  $4.94  a  set 96. 1 

EXHIBIT   2. 

Austrian  dinner  plate,  costing  $1.32  a  dozen. 

Dinner  set.  represented  by  Exhibit  2.  consisting  of  100  pieces,  costs  laid  down 

at  Baltimore,  including  all  charges,  excepting  importer's  profit  and  selling 

expense,  $8.37  a  set. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    EXHIBIT   2. 

Domestic  dinner  plato.  soiling  at  71jcentsa  dozen...  85  J 

Dinner  set  of  100  pieces,  represented  by  Illustrative  Exhibit,  No.  2,  same 
combination  as  above,  selling  at  $5.21  a  set ..  60§ 

F.XHIRTT    I?. 

Austrian  dinner  plate.  cn8iin£  $2.57  :i  dozen. 

Dinner  set.  represented  by  Exhibit  3,  consisting  of  [00  piece?,  costs  laid  down 

at  Baltimore,  including  all  charges,  excepting  importer's  profit  and  selling 

expense.  $10.21  a  set. 


670  TARIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    EXHIBIT  3. 

Domestic  dinner  plate,  selling  at  $1.424  a  dozen 80J 

Dinner  set  of  100  pieces,  represented  by  Illustrative  Exhibit  No.  3,  same 
combination  as  above,  selling  at  $10.40  a  set 56£ 

EXHIBIT  4. 

Austrian  dinner  plate,  costing  $1.54  a  dozen. 

Dinner  set,  represented  by  Exhibit  5,  consisting  of  100  pieces,  costs  laid  down 

at  Baltimore,  including  all  charges,  excepting  importer's  profit  and  selling 

expense,  $10.11  a  set. 

ILLUSTRATIVE   EXHIBIT  4. 

Domestic  dinner  plate,  selling  at  $0.75  a  dozen .- 105J 

Dinner  set,  100  pieces,  represented  by  Illustrative  Exhibit  5,  same  combina- 
tion as  above,  selling  at  $5.48  a  set 84J 

EXHIBIT  5. 

German  dinner  plate,  costing  $1.75£  a  dozen. 

Dinner  set,  represented  by  Exhibit  6,  consisting  of  100  pieces,  same  com- 
bination as  above,  costs  laid  down  at  Baltimore,  including  all  charges, 
excepting  importer's  profit  and  selling  expense,  $11.15  a  set. 

ILLUSTRATIVE   EXHIBIT  5. 

Domestic  dinner  plate,  selling  at  $0.75  a  dozen 134 

Dinner  set  of  100  pieces,  represented  by  Illustrative  Exhibit  6,  same  com- 
bination as  above,  selling  at  $5.48  a  set 103$ 

EXHIBIT  6. 

German  plate,  costs  laid  down  in  Baltimore,  including  all  charges,  excepting 
importer's  profit  and  selling  expense,  $0.70  10/12  a  dozen. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    EXHIBIT   6. 

Domestic  plate  comparable  with  Exhibit  No.  11.     Sold  in  this  market  by  the 
domestic  potteries  at  $0.40 J  a  dozen 74. 9 

It  may  be  claimed  that  the  imported  articles  for  which  prices  are  given  above  are 
china,  while  the  domestic  articles  are  earthenware.  While  this  is  true,  we  particu- 
larly direct  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  appearance  of  both  is  the  same,  and  that 
the  articles  of  domestic  earthenware  above  mentioned  are  sold  in  this  country  in 
direct  competition  with  the  imported  chinaware.  We  point  out  further  that  many 
of  the  articles  of  domestic  earthenware  are  plainly  stamped  with  the  word  "china," 
indicating  the  intention  of  the  domestic  manufacturer  to  lead  the  consumer  to  believe 
that  he  is  buying  china  and  not  earthenware  (see  Illustrative  Exhibits  Nos.  4  and  8). 
Attention  is  further  directed  to  Illustrative  Exhibit  No.  8,  marked  "Dresden  china," 
and  No.  9,  marked  "Limoges  china,"  and  Exhibit  7,  all  of  which  are  earthenware  of 
domestic  manufacture. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  the  fact  that  in  making  the  above  comparisons  we  have 
used  similar  classes  of  decorations. 

Yesterday  it  was  slated  here  that  $15,000,000  worth  of  tableware  was  manufactured 
here  against  importations  of  $11,000,000  in  foreign  value,  but  this  is  not  correct,  because  , 
in  this  $11,000,000  is  included  a  goodly  portion  of  goods  that  are  not  tableware  at  all, 
for  instance;  vases,  statuettes,  busts,  figures,  umbrella  stands,  flower  pots,  clock 
cases,  steins,  plaques,  cuspidores,  lamps,  pedestals,  toy  tea  sets,  etc.  We  have  not 
the  figures  at  our  disposal  as  no  separation  is  made  for  statistical  purposes  by  the 
(Jovernment,  but  we  believe  there  are  from  25  to  33J  per  cent  of  the  total  importa- 
tions of  white  and  decorated  chinaware. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  Ihe  fact  that  while  the  said  $11,000,000  are  correct  so  far 
as  the  year  1911  is  concerned,  during  1912  the  importations  decreased  to  $9,997,698. 

In  view  of  all  these  statements  herein  made  it  is  respectively  submitted  that  35 
per  cent  duty  on  decorated  as  well  as  white  chinaware  affords  ample  protection  to 
(lie  domestic  potters  and  the  revenue.  In  addition,  it  is  submitted,  that  no  duty 
phould  be  imposed  on  the  outside  cases,  casks,  or  crates. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


671 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
EXHIBIT  B. 

One  case  containing  60  dozen  decorated  German  china  creamers,  at  1  mark,  equals 
23 A  cents  a  dozen,  $14.28. 
Weight,  517  pounds;  measure,  44.97  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case  

$2  40 

16  78 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

1  90 

13  28 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)  

1  97 

13  77 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

34 

2  38 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $14  28 

60  per  cent  duty  on  valae  of  case  240 

16.68 

10.01 

70.10 

16.62 

116.87 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $16.62  to  land  $14.28  worth  of  china 
creamers  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  C. 

One  case  containing  60  dozen  decorated  German  china  cups  and  saucers,  at  1.50 
marks,  equals  35^  cents  a  dozen,  $21.42. 
Weight,  770  pounds;  measure,  39.7  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case       ..  ..       .. 

$1.92 
2.79 
2.93 
.50 

14.00 

9.97 
13.02 
13.69 
2.33 

65.35 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)  

Marino  iTlsiirV"",  niist.r>m<i  p.ntry,  loss  1  mntjth  interfisft;,  (tartAgn  

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goo'ds  I  ."  $21.42 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  CPSP  1.92 

23.34 

22.14 

103.36 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates,  it  cost  $22,14  to  land  $21.42  worth  of  china 
cups  and  saucers  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  D. 

One  case  containing  12  dozen  decorated  German  china  cuspidors,  at  4.25  marks, 
equals  $1.01  a  dozen. 
Weight,  440  pounds;  measure,  36  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

$1.92 

15.76 

1.62 

13.37 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)  

1.68 

13.88 

.31 

2.58 

On  value  of  case  1-92 

14.04 

8.42 

69.47 

13.95 

115.06 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $13.95  to  land  $12.12  worth  of  china 
cuspidors  in  Baltimore. 


672 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
EXHIBIT  E. 

One  case  containing  60  dozen  decorated  German  china  cups  and  saucers,  at  1.40 
marks,  equals  33J  cents,  $20. 
Weight  770  pounds,  measure  39.7  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

Cost  of  case  

$1.92 

9.60 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

2  S3 

14.15 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)  

2.93 

14.65 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

.49 

2.45 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $20.  00 

On  value  of  case        ..    ...........................                                       192 

21.92 

13.15 

65.75 

21.32 

106.60 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $21.32  to  land  $20  worth  of  china  cups 
and  saucers  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  F. 

One  case  containing  125  dozen  decorated  German  china  plates,  at  1  mark,  equals 

cents  a  dozen,  $29.79. 
Weight  686  pounds,  measure  29.6  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

Cost  of  case  

$1.68 

5.64 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

2.89 

7  69 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds) 

2  60 

8  72 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  .. 

.79 

2  64 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $29.  79 

On  value  of  case     1.68 

31.47 

18.88 

63.33 

26.24 

88.02 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $26.24  to  land  $29.79  worth  of  china 
plates  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  G. 

One  case  containing  60  dozen  decorated  German  china  plates,  at  1.50  marks,  equals 
35}  cents,  $21.45. 
Weight,  599  pounds;  measure,  36  cubic  feet. 


Value.     Per  cent. 


Cost  of  case 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  Kuropean  port ' 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  conls  per  100  pounds) 

Marino  insurance,  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage 

fiO  per  cent  fluty  on  value  of  goods $21.45 

60  per  cent  on  value  (if  case 1.92 


23.37 


$1.92 

2.32 

2.27 

.52 


14.02 


21.05 


8.93 
10.88 
10.68 

2.42 


65.21 


On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  rost  $21.05  to  land  $21.45  worth  of  china 
plates  in  Baltimore. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


673 


PABAGBAPHS  92-94— POTTEBY. 
EXHIBIT  H. 

One  case  containing  100  dozen  decorated  German  china  oatmeals  at  1  mark  equals 
3^  centa  a  dozen,  $23.80. 
Weight,  737  pounds;  measure,  36  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case      

SI  92 

8  07 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  ?^uropean  port  

2  73 

11  47 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds). 
Marine  insurance  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  . 

66 

2  77 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $23.  80 

On  value  of  case  1.92 

25.72 

15.43 

64.83 

23.54 

98.91 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $23.54  to  land  $23.80  worth  of  china 
oatmeals  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  I. 

One  case  containing  120  dozen  decorated  German  china  fruit  saucers,  at  90  marks, 
equals  21-f^y  cents  a  dozen.  $25.68. 
Weight,  647  pounds;  measure,  25.4  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

$1.54 

6.00 

2.51 

9.77 

2.47 

9.61 

.59 

2.30 

27.22 

16.33 

63.59 

• 

23.44 

91.27 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $23.44  to  land  $25.68  worth  of  china 
fruit  saucers  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  J. 

One  case  containing  132  dozen  decorated  German  china  fruit  saucers,  80  marks, 

equals  19  cents  a  dozen,  $25.08. 

Weight,  544  pounds;  measure,  26.6  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

$1.68 
2.00 

6.70 
7.97 

r  reignr  irom  uerman  h  (  ior>                 Qr  ion  nnnnHci 

.58 
16.06 

2.31 

64.03 

26.76 

22.39 

89.27 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost 
fruit  saucers  in  Baltimore. 


22.39  to  land  $25.08  worth  of  china 


i\v. ).:»!.»' -•_ VOL  L—  l.'J 43 


674  TAEIFF  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
EXHIBIT  K. 

One  case  containing  40  dozen  decorated   German  china  salads,  at  2.75  marks, 
equals  65£  cents  a  dozen,  $26.20. 

Weight  700  pounds,  measure  34  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

$1.92 
2.55 
2.66 
.62 

16.87 

7.33 
9.73 
10.15 
2.37 

64.39 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)  

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $26.  20 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  case  1.92 

28.12 

24.62 

93.97 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $24.62  to  land  $26.20  worth  of  china 
salads  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  L. 

One  cafe,  containing  30  dozen  decorated  German  china  salads,  at  3.90  marks,  equal 

93  cent,?  a  dozen,  $27.90. 
Weight  810  pounds,  measure  45  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case       

$2.40 

8.60 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

2.95 

10.57 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds)                     .        .... 

3  08 

11  04 

Marine  insurance  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

.67 

2.40 

60  per  cent  dut  v  on  value  of  goods  $27.  90 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  case  2.40 

30.30 

18.18 

65.10 

- 

27.28 

97.77 

On  the  basL«  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates,  it  cost  $27.28  to  land  $27.90  worth  of  china 
ealads  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  M. 

One  rase  containing  30  dozen  decorated  German  china  salads,  at  3.10  marks,  equals 
13|  cents  a  dozen.  $22.] 2. 

Weight  70S  pounds,  measure  34  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Per  cent. 

Co^t  of  rase     

$1.92 

8  68 

Freight  from  '  ierman  factory  to  European  port       

2.60 

11.75 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cent?  per  100  pounds)      .                 

2.69 

12.16 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  lo.^s  !  month  interest,  cartage  

.54 

2.44 

60  per  rent  dut  \-  on  value  of  goods                                                                              $22.  12 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  case  1.92 

24.04 

14.42 

65.19 

22.17 

100.22 

On  th"  basis  <>f  1012  ocean  freight  rales  it  cust  $22.17  to  land  $22.12  worth  of  china 
ealads  in  Baltimore. 


SCHEDULE  B. 


675 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
EXHIBIT  N. 

One  case  containing  40  dozen  decorated  German  china  salads,  at  2.20  marks,  equal 
52 J  cents  a  dozen,  $20.93. 
Weight  715  pounds,  measure  42.3  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

Cost  of  case  

$1  92 

9  17 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  Kuropeanport  

2  63 

12  57 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  (38  cents  per  100  pounds'  

2  72 

13  00 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entrv.  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

48 

2  29 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  .                   $20  93 

60  percent  duty  on  value  of  case  1  92 

13  71 

22.85 

21.46 

102.53 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $21.46  to  land  $20.93  worth  of  china 
salads  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  0. 

One  case  containing  36  dozen  decorated  German  china  cake  plates,  at  2.70  marks, 
equals  64}  cents  a  dozen,  $23.13. 
Weight,  616  pounds;  measure,  36  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent 

Cost  of  case          

$1  92 

8  30 

Freight  from  German  factory  to  European  port  

2  26 

9  77 

Ocean  freight  to  Baltimore  ("38  cents  p*er  100  pounds)  

2.34 

10  12 

Marine  insurance  customs  entry,  loss  1  month  interest,  cartage  

55 

2  38 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  goods  $23.  13 

60  per  cent  duty  on  value  of  case  1.92 

25.05 

15.03 

64.98 

22.10 

95.55 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates  it  cost  $22.10  to  land  $23.13  worth  of  china 
cake  plates  in  Baltimore. 

EXHIBIT  P. 

One  case  containing  24  dozen  decorated.     German  china  sugars  and  creams,  at  2 
marks,  equals  71^  rents  a  dozen,  $17.14. 
Weight,  506  pounds;  measure,  40.1  cubic  feet. 


Value. 

Percent. 

$1.92 

11.21 

1.86 

10.86 

1.92 

11.21 

.42 

2.45 

19.06 

11.42 

66.66 

17.55 

102.39 

On  the  basis  of  1912  ocean  freight  rates,  it  cost  $17.55  to  land  $17.14  worth  of  china 
sugars  and  creams  in  Baltimore. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  in  the  present  year,  1913,  the  ocean  freight  rates 
are  31.6  per  cent  higher  than  given  in  the  above  exhibits. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

GEO.  KOLB, 
HERMAN  SIEOEL, 
JULIUS  ROSENFELD, 
Committee  for  the  Importers  of  German  and  Austrian  China,  New  York  City. 


676  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  Kolb  thereupon  exhibited  samples  of  china  and  earthenware 
to  the  committee. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Do  you  know  what  they  pay  for  decoration  in  Ger- 
many? 

Mr.  KOLB.  I  could  not  give  you  any  information  on  that  score.  I 
am  a  manufacturer  and  not  an  importer. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  am  told  it  costs  $1.50  a  week  in  Great  Britain  and 
$8  a  week  here  for  the  girls  who  dp  that  work. 

Mr.  KOLB.  I  think,  Mr.  Payne,  if  I  would  ask  a  manufacturer  with 
whom  I  was  dealing  what  he  paid  for  the  applying  of  the  decorations 
or  what  it  cost  him  he  would  tell  me  that  was  none  of  my  business. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  presume  he  would,  if  he  was  importing  into  the 
United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  almost  through,  Mr.  Kolb  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question.  Really,  as  a  matter 
between  one  china  and  another,  is  not  china  to-day  a  luxury  ? 

Mr.  KOLB.  No,  sir;  not  the  class  of  merchandise  we  are  talking 
about  here  to-day. 

Mr.  HILL.  One  will  look  just  as  well  as  the  other  and  wear  just 
as  well  ? 

Mr.  KOLB.  Sir? 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  a  luxury  ? 

Mr.  KOLB.  Xo.  sir;  you  would  not  call  that  a  luxury  [exhibiting 
plate]? 

Mr.  HILL.  If  I  was  working  for  $6  or  $8  or  $10  or  $12  a  week,  as 
the  average  workman  in  the  United  States  does,  it  would  be  a  luxury 
to  me. 

Mr.  KOLB.   I  would  not  say  that. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  a  luxury  to  the  average  American  citizen? 

Mr.  KOLB.  Xo.  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  And  ought  it  not  to  pay  a  high  tax? 

Mr.  KOLB.   Xo.  sir. 

Here  is  something  that  I  would  like  to  show,  to  show  you  that  the 
domestic  potter  to-day  is  stamping  a  good  portion  of  his  ware  as 
china.  Here,  for  instance.  1  have  a  plate  that  is  stamped  "Dresden 
China''  (exhibiting  plate);  here  is  another  platter  marked  "Limoges 
China." 

Mr.  PAVXK.   He  ought  to  be  sent    to  State  prison  for  life  for  that. 

Mr.  KOLB.  That  would  happen  if  the  importer  did  it. 

Mi1.  PAYNE.  You  couldn't  get  an  importer  in  State  prison  when 
he  actually  commits  a  fraud  and  gets  thousands  of  dollars  out  of  the 
Government  ( 

Mr.  KOLB.  The  Government  would  have  to  prove  it  first,  before 
they  could  do  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  that  concludes  Mr.  Kolb's  statement. 


(i  ]•;<>.    BORGFELDT    i    Co., 

('rsTOMs  DEPARTMENT, 

Xnr   York.  X.    Y..  January  30,  1913. 
Mr     [>\\]ii     (  '.     !;.>[  IK. 

C'lrrl:  f'miiniitln  <DI   II  ,i;t.<  ,i,,<i   ~\f«ni.<,   nV/s/);',M//n?i.  f>.  P. 

M>   I>i  \i;Mi;    Koi'Ki;     l'.\  dircciiiui  of  the  committee  we  beg  to  hand  you  herewith 
ii  ci'j'V  ui  memoranda  in  rrl/uiial  ui  L-erlain  sUUcineiHs  made  by  Mr.  Burgess  and  Mr. 


SCHEDULE   B.  677 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Wells  in  reference  to  the  hearings  before  the  committee  on  Schedule  B,  which  I  will 
thank  you  to  have  printed  in  the  proper  place,  and  oblige, 
Yours,  truly, 

CEO.  BORGFELDT   &   Co., 

JOHN  E.  DAWSING,  Customs  Manager. 

MKMORANDA  IN  REBUTTAL  OP  STATEMENTS  MADE  BY  WILLIAM  BURGESS  AND  W.  E. 
WELLS,  REPRESENTING  THE  DOMESTIC  POTTERY  INTERESTS. 

[Before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Jan.  8, 1913.] 

Mr.  Burgess  stated  that  fully  90  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  pottery  ware  represents 
labor  and  that  66$  per  cent  goes  out  in  the  pay  envelope.  This  is  at  §  variance 
with  statement  of  the  other  representative,  Mr.  Wells,  where  he  shows  besides  wages, 
the  "pay  envelope"  kind  of  Mr.  Burgess,  a  small  item  of  over  $20,000,  made  up  of 
"all  other  wages,  $14,054.33,  and  office  and  management,  $6,240."  This  represents 
but  one  of  his  factories,  and,  presumably,  the  figures  are  most  favorable.  This  is 
an  expense  and  can  not  be  considered  anything  else  and  certainly  does  not  go  into 
the  beneficent  pay  envelope. 

Also  in. this  connection  Mr.  Burgess  confuses  the  figures.  He  shows  of  the  pro- 
duction of  $115.263  the  labor  item  to  be  $58,912,  or  51$  per  cent.  Here  he  reckons 
interest  at  $9,430,  whereas  he  states  an  investment  of  $100,000  should  produce 
$150,000  of  finished  product,  so  that  according  to  these  figures,  on  a  production  of 
$115,263  a  liberal  estimate  of  investment  necessary  would  be  $80,000  with  interest 
of  about  $5,000. 

Mr.  Burgess  stated  that  they  are  supplying  less  than  two-fifths  of  the  consump- 
tion of  dinner  ware.  According  to  his  figures  the  domestic  production  is  $16,000,000 
or  $17,000.000,  and  the  landed  cost  of  importations  would  be  about  the  same. 
In  the  amount  of  the  imported  goods  represented  25  to  33  per  cent  of  fancy 
articles,  not  dinner  ware,  and  high-priced  china  goods  which  in  no  way  come  into 
competition  with  the  domestic  production  and  should  not  be  used  as  a  basis  for 
comparison. 

In  this  connection  Mr.  Burgess  in  defending  the  domestic  pottery  interests  made 
the  sorrowful  statement  that  the  business  never  made  a  fortune  for  anyone.  While 
that  may  merely  be  regarded  as  a  relative  expression,  200  per  cent  dividends  might 
be  regarded  as  approaching  "comfortable  conditions."  The  Onandago  Pottery  Co. 
(see  recent  issue  of  May  19,  1912,  of  the  Pottery,  Glass,  and  Brass  Salesman),  which  is 
practically  the  only  pottery  company  in  the  United  States  producing  real  china, 
declared  a  stock  dividend  of  $500,000  on  a  capital  of  $250.000,  or,  in  other  words,  a 
200  per  cent  dividend. 

Mr.  Burgess's  allusion  to  Royal  pottery  companies  is  another  misleading  state, 
ment.  The  Royal  Worcester  is  not  a  Royal  factory  of  any  sort.  It  is  royal  only 
in  name  and  is  not  subsidized  by  the  Government.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  "  Royal 
Japanese  Factory,"  nor  has  one  existed  for  the  past  50  years.  These  facts  and  others 
of  like  purport  it  does  not  seem  probable  the  domestic  interests  were  ignorant  of. 

Mr.  Burgess  again  submits  misleading  statements.  He  states  the  dividends 
of  various  foreign  factories:  Kahla.  25  per  cent;  Rosenthal,  18  per  cent;  Jonhson 
Bros.,  26f  per  cent,  etc.,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  Kahla  pays  25  per  cent  on  about 
2.000.000  marks  ($500.000)  of  common  stock  and  about  3$  to  4  per  cent  on  about 
4,000.000  marks  ($800.000)  bonds,  making  an  actual  dividend  of  10  or  11  per  cent  on 
their  capitalization;  also  these  dividends  are  chiefly  derived  from  electrical  goods, 
such  as  insulators,  etc.,  not  imported  into  this  country.  The  Rosenthal  earnings  are 
based  on  similar  conditions,  and  the  output  of  Johnson  Bros,  is  practically  two-thirds 
sanitary  ware,  none  of  which  is  imported  into  this  market.  His  other  statements 
have  the  same  value  for  accuracy.  In  comparison  of  American  factories  he  gives 
earnings  of  factories  as  averaging  6f  per  cent,  which,  if  submitted,  is  equal  to  the 
factories  of  any  of  the  pottery  centers  of  Europe. 

In  this  connection  Mr.  Wells  gives  the  average  earnings  of  21  factories  as  8 
per  cent.  He  carefully  gives  the  average.  It  would  be  illuminating  to  have  the 
figures  of  a  few  of  the  most  successful.  We  have  shown  one.  supra,  paying  a  200  per 
cent  dividend. 

Assuming  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Wells  indicating  the  average  profit  of  21  fac- 
tories to  be  (i§  per  cent  to  be  correct,  this  does  not  necessarily  indicate  that  the  Amer- 
ican factories  are  entitled  to  special  protection,  because  o!'  the  Uct  that  they  do  not 
show  large  profits,  although  this  is  intended  to  be  implied. 


678 


TARIFF  HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

In  any  industry  the  dividend  returns  will  vary  in  different  factories  making  the 
same  merchandise,  according  to  the  different  degrees  of  ability  displayed  by  the 
management. 

It  is  certain  that  the  inducements  of  the  actual  profits,  whether  declared  as  divi- 
dends or  in  whatever  manner  received,  have  been  sufficient  to  cause  a  large  increase 
in  the  capital  invested  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  kilns  built,  from  239  in  1890 
and  about  1,000  in  1912,  and  several  of  the  big  factories  have  announced  a  further 
increase  in  the  number  of  kilns.  The  increase  and  output  has  been  from  $4,000,000 
to  $17,000,000.  As  the  protection  enjoyed  has  been  enormous,  it  appears  evident 
that  the  normal  rate  of  dividend  shown  is  not  an  adequate  index  of  the  real  prosperity 
of  the  industry.  It  seems  probable  that  the  well-managed  concerns  show  consider- 
able profit,  and  that  the  figures  are  only  held  down  to  the  average  of  (if  per  cent  by 
reason  of  the  poor  showing  of  the  poorly  managed  or  equipped  plants.  The  figures 
submitted  do  not  disguise  the  fact  that  some  of  the  factories  were  operated  at  a  loss, 
but  as  they  do  not  wish  the  actual  dividends  declared  making  up  the  average,  they 
are  not  conclusive,  and  can  not  be  used  as  an  index  of  the  condition  in  the  industry. 

On  page Mr.  Burgess  gives  some  figures  which  he  states  are  based  on  informa- 
tion obtained  by  him  while  an  American  consul  in  the  potting  district  of  England. 
This  was  20  years  ago  (1893)  and  although  he  states  they  have  been  confirmed  he 
carefully  refrained  from  giving  any  data  on  the  subject.  AM  a  further  index  of  the 
misleading  character  of  his  statement  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee'  we  quote 
his  figures  and  what  they  are  actually  to-day.  It  is  unnecessary  to  suggest  that  this 
correct  information,  if  not  actually  in  Mr.  Burgess'  possession,  could  have  been  easily 
obtained. 

The  price  of  coal  in  England. 

Mr.  Burgess'  figures:  Coal,  $2.56;  cobbles,  $2.10;  slack,  $1.38. 

Actual  prices  to-day  in  England  of  the  grades  of  coal  used  by  the  pottery  manu- 
facturers are  an  follows:  Coal,  14s.  lOd.  ($3.61);  cockshead  or  burgy  from  13s.  15d. 
($3.16  to  S3. 65i:  slack.  10s.  6d.  ($2.57);  coal,  domestic  (Mr.  Burgess),  $3.45  per  ton. 

Actually  delivered  in  East  Liverpool:  Coal,  $2.75;  slack,  $1.75. 

Wages. 


English. 


American. 


Plate  makers  ("man): 

Present  average  price 

Includes  3  attendants  earnim 


Average  net  earnini; 
Mr.  Burgess's  figures. 


Cup  makers  (women): 

Present  average  price 

Includes  3  attendants  earnim 


Average  net  earninc. 
Mr.  Burgess's  figures. 


Saucer  maker  ( women  1: 

Present  average  price 

Includes  3  attendants  earnins. 


f   s.  d. 
5  10    0 

1    8    0 


300 
180 


500 
1    4    0 


300 
1     8    0 


3  10    0 
1     2     0 


$26.  88 

0.81 


20.07 
6.90 


14.  GO 
6.81 


7.79 
4.94 


24.33 
5.83 

18.50 
8.42 


10. 00 
0.81 


9.25 
4.06 


17.03 
5.35 


11.08 
7.22 


15.81 
5.94 


SCHEDULE  B.  679 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  Burgess  made  the  statement  that  the  cheaper  grade  of  foreign  goods  can  be  sold 
at  a  less  price  than  they  can  produce  them  here  and  that  therefore  the  American 
manufacturers  are  confined  to  middle-grade  goods,  upon  which  the  domestic  compe- 
tition is  keen,  and  that  therefore  profits  have  not  been  in  excess  of  5J  per  cent.  The 
indisputable  fact  is  that  up  to  10  years  ago  the  10-cent  stores,  which  sold  the  cheaper 
grades  of  goods,  supplied  themselves  almost  exclusively  with  imported  pottery,  while 
at  the  present  time  75  per  cent  of  their  purchases  are  made  in  this  country.  We  also 
refer  to  our  brief,  and  particularly  to  Exhibits  1  to  6,  in  contradiction  of 
Burgess's  statement  that  very  few  American  goods  (dinner  ware)  are  sold  in  depart- 
ment stores,  but  that  almost  all  is  imported.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  they  do  not 
have  to  be  kept  in  stockj  as  foreign  goods  do,  because  American  goods  can  be  pur- 
chased as  wanted,  which  is  in  favor  of  the  American  goods  and  a  handicap  against  the 
imported  goods.  In  other  words,  a  purchaser  of  foreign  goods  has  to  take  the  risk  of 
currying  stock  and  tie  up  hie  money,  whereas  he  can  buy  American  goods  as  wanted. 

Freight  rates  obtained  from  English  manufacturers:  In  former  years  from  Liver- 
pool, England,  to  Baltimore,  and  from  Liverpool  to  St.  Louis  show  from  figures  that 
the  published  English  freight  rates  now  on  earthenware  are  measurement  rates.  It 
should  be  shown  now  these  measurement  rates  figure  out  if  converted  to  the  100- 
pound  rate.  Mr.  J.  Jones,  as  stated  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  seems  to  be 
of  the  idea  that  it  figures  out  25  cents  on  100  pounds,  or  three  times  as  much  as  wan 
asserted  by  Mr.  Burgess. 

We  also  desire  to  direct  particular  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  false  marking  of 
earthenware  by  the  very  domestic  manufacturers  whose  representatives  appeared 
before  you.  We  submitted  samples  of  various  earthenware  which  is  stamped  Limo- 
ges" china,  "Dresden"  china  for  "China."  There  is  a  very  heavy  penalty  pre- 
scribed for  the  false  marking  of  imported  articles,  the  purpose  being,  of  course,  to 
protect  the  American  consumer.  There  is,  however,  no  corresponding  penalty  pro- 
tecting the  American  consumer  from  the  false  marking  and  misrepresentations  of  the 
domestic  manufacturer,  as  set  forth  in  this  instance.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowl- 
edge that  Limoges  china  and  Dresden  china  are  the  very  best  grades  of  merchandise 
manufactured,  and  the  purpose  of  the  false  marking  by  the  domestic  manufacturers 
is  clearly  to  deceive  the  consumer. 

We  attach  hereto  also  an  advertisement  clipped  from  the  Cosmopolitan  Magazine, 
marked  "Exhibit  A,"  referring  to  "Homer  Laughlin  China"  manufactured  by  Homer 
Laughlin  China  Co.  These  goods  are  earthenware  and  not  china,  nor  does  this  concern 
manufacture  china.  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells,  whose  testimony  is  herein  referred  to,  is  con- 
nected with  this  concern  and  appeared  as  their  representative. 

We  also  attach  hereto  an  advertisement  of  "Limoges  China  Dinnerware,"  manu- 
factured by  the  Limoges  China  Co.  of  Sebring,  Ohio.  (Exhibit  B.)  We  do  not  deny 
the  right  of  a  company  using  its  incorporated  name,  but  the  purpose  of  stamping 
earthenware  "Limoges  china"  seems  clear  and  apparent. 

It  is  respectfully  suggested  that  in  giving  the  necessary  consideration  and  weight  to 
the  testimony  of  the  domestic  pottery  concerns  that  this  committee  take  due  cog- 
nizance of  the  many  glaring  inaccuracies  of  statements  made,  of  errors  of  omission  aa 
well  as  commission. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

GEO.  KOLB, 
HERMAN  SIEQEL, 
JULIUS  ROSENFELD, 
Committee  for  the  Importers  of  German  and  Austrian  China,  New  York  City. 


EXHIBIT  A. 

HOMER  LAUGHLIN    CHINA   FOR   SERVICE. 

For  real  household  service,  for  real  satisfaction,  you  can  not  buy  better,  more  attrac- 
tive, or  more  serviceable  dinner  ware  than  Homer  Laughlin  china,  but  you  can  pay 
much  higher  prices  than  are  asked  for  it.  Sold  almost  everywhere.  The  trade-mark 
,  "Homer  Laughlin,"  stamped  on  the  underside  of  each  dish  is  our  guaranty 


NOTE.—  People  tell  us  that  "The  China  Book  "  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  inter- 
esting brochures  recently  produced.     Send  for  your  copy.     It  is  free. 

THB  HOMER  LAUQHLIN  CHINA  Co.. 

Newell,  W.  Va. 


680  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 
EXHIBIT  B. 

The  Limoges  china  dinner  ware  equals  the  best  of  imported  ware  at  one-eighth  of  the 
cost,  made  in  any  size  set  or  assortment.     We  are  the  recognized  leaders  on  coffee  and 
tea  assortments.     Our  Royal  Flow  blue  and  French  Flow  green  treatments  are  deserv- 
edly popular.     We  are  constantly  creating  special  plans  to  stimulate  your  business. 
Write  us  for  samples. 

THE  LIMOGES  CHINA  Co., 

Sebring,  Ohio. 

STATEMENT  OF  WILL  T.  BLAKE,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
BROTHERHOOD  OF  OPERATIVE  POTTERS. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  just  a  statement  which  perhaps 
will  explain  itself. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  your  committee  is  meeting  at  this  time  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  wisdom  of  revising  the  tariff  schedules 
on  pottery,  and  mindful  of  the  further  fact  that  such  revision  if  it  be 
downward,  judging  from  past  experience,  would  undoubtedly  prove 
a  serious  blow  and  setback  to  the  American  pottery  industry,  we 
herewith  submit  for  your  information  and  careful  thought  a  few  facts 
which  we  trust  may  be  of  some  meager  assistance  to  you  in  reaching 
a  fair  and  equitable  conclusion. 

Should  the  present  tariff  schedules  on  pottery  be  cut  so  as  to  re- 
quire a  reduction  in  the  present  selling  price  of  the  American  pottery 
manufacturers'  goods,  we  have  been  given  assurance  by  no  less  an 
authority  than  Mr.  W.  E.  Wells  himself,  an  official  of  and  spokesman 
for  the  United  States  Potters'  Association,  that  there  must  and  inev- 
itably will  follow  a  reduction  in  the  wages  of  the  employees  of 
such  industry  in  proportion  to  and  as  a  consequence  of  such  tariff 
revision. 

In  confirmation  of  the  foregoing  statement,  we  herewith  submit 
in  part  Mr.  Wells's  public  declarations  to  the  press: 

If  the  rate  of  duty  on  pottery  is  reduced,  it  will  mean  that  the  selling  price  must 
be  reduced.  The  owners  will  not,  and  can  not,  sell  their  output  on  a  closer  margin 
than  they  are  doing  to-day,  and  if  they  must  reduce  prices  they  must  either  close 
their  plants  or  reduce  wages.  Just  as  surely  as  the  workmen  are  getting  every  dollar 
of  the  protection  to-day  they  will  have  to  stand  every  dollar  of  any  reduction  made. 
This  is  no  threat  nor  bluff,  but  is  the  deliberate  statement  of  one  who  knows  pre- 
cisely what  he  is  talking  about.  This  result  occurred  in  1894,  and  there  is  more 
reason  for  it  now  than  there  was  at  that  time. 

At  present  one-half  of  the  pottery  used  in  this  country  is  made  abroad,  which  is 
fairly  good  evidence  that  the  protective  tariff  has  not  made  a  monopoly  in  this  par- 
ticular line.  We  are  fighting  with  the  importer  every  day  to  hold  our  ground  and 
still  pay  American  wages.  The  owner  can  not  take  another  dollar  out  of  his  pocket 
in  hold  his  present  proportion  of  the  business,  and  it  will  bear  repeating  that  if  the 
new  administration  should  invite  pottery  to  this  country  at  a  lower  price  that  dif- 
ference will  have  to  be  met  right  out  of  the  workinsman's  pocket. 

Mr.  Wells,  I  believe,  is  present  in  the  audience  this  afternoon,  and 
if  that  statement  is  not  correct  I  should  be  very  glad  to  have  him 
indicate  it. 

It  will  be  remembered,  perhaps,  by  the  older  members  of  your  com- 
mittee that  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  enacted  into  law  back  in  1894, 
materially  reducing  the  tariff  and  thereby  inviting  greater  foreign 
competition,  many  of  the  potteries  closed  oLown  entirely,  and  few, 
if  any,  of  them  were  operated  much  better  than  half  time.  The 
employees  were  not  only  forced  against  their  wishes  to  accept  irreg- 


SCHEDULE  B.  681 

PARAGRAPHS  92  94     POTTERY. 

ular  employment,  but  were  obliged  as  well  to  work  at  a  12$  per  cent 
reduction.  These  conditions,  too,  obtained  throughout  the  "life  of  the 
Wilson  law. 

Following  the  enactment  of  the  Dingle v  law  in  1897,  which  mate- 
rially increased  the  tariff,  the  trade  of  the  domestic  pottery  manu- 
facturer in  a  comparatively  short  time  assumed  a  more  normal  and 
prosperous  condition,  steadier  work  was  furnished  the  employees,  and 
the  wage  scale  which  prevailed  prior  to  the  12$  per  cent  reduction  was 
restored.  No  attempt  has  since  been  made  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  Potters'  Association  to  reduce  wages.  On  the  contrary,  in 
many  branches  of  the  industry  material  wage  increases  have  been  con- 
ceded to  the  workmen,  which,  in  effect,  have  enabled  them  to  surround 
themselves  with  more  of  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life. 

In  view  of  the  expressed  declaration  of  the  United  States  Potters' 
Association  as  to  what  the  workmen  may  expect  should  the  present 
tariff  schedules  be  lowered,  and  in  view  of  what  actually  did  nappen 
between  the  years  1894  and  1897  when  the  schedules  were  lowered, 
we  say  to  you  frankly,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  and  with  the 
utmost  sincerity,  that  if  the  present  schedules  are  reduced  and  the 
growth  of  the  pottery  industry  is  impaired  or  retarded,  or  if  the  wages 
of  our  men  are  jeopardized  or  lowered,  we  should  consider  it  an  act  of 
retrogression — a  step  backward. 

As  prosperous  at  the  country  now  is,  and  as  considerate  as  our  em- 
ployers have  been  on  questions  affecting  wages,  our  men  to-day,  with 
all  of  these  things  in  their  favor,  have  an  exceedingly  difficult  mathe- 
matical problem  on  their  hands  to  meet  the  everyday  obligations  of 
life.  They  assuredly  do  not  want  to  take  a  step  backward,  and  be- 
lieving as  they  do  that  if  the  present  schedules  are  lowered  it  un- 
questionably means  a  step  backward,  we,  as  their  representatives,  do 
urge  upon  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that 
the  present  schedules  on  pottery  be  not  disturbed. 

This  statement  is  signed  by  Frank  H.  Hutchins,  Michael  Kennedy, 
Edwin  James  Whitehead,  Samuel  T.  Burgess,  and  Will  T.  Blake, 
representatives  of  the  National  Brotherhood  of  Operative  Potters. 

I  desire  to  yield  the  remaining  portion  of  my  time,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  Mr.  Frank  II.  Hutchins,  the  first  vice  president  of  our  organiza- 
tion, of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  who  wishes  to  make  a  brief  oral  statement. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  I  desire  to  ask  a  few  questions.  You  are  a  prac- 
tical potter? 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  A  member  of  the  Potters'  Association? 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  How  many  of  them  are  there? 

Mr.  BLAKE.  In  our  organization,  I  should  say,  Mr.  Longworth, 
there  are  about  7,000.  In  the  industry  which  we  represent  there 
are  perhaps  13,000  or  14,000.  But  not  all  those  are  skilled  laborers. 
We  take  in  all  of  the  skilled  branches,  with  perhaps  one  exception. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Would  your  experience  as  a  skilled  potter  fit  you 
for  any  other  employment  in  case  the  pottery  industry  in  this  coun- 
try should  be  abandoned  ? 

'Mr.  BLAKE.  I  think  not.  unless  it  would  be  to  publish  a  trade 
paper  of  some  character. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  But  no  trade  occupation? 


682  TAKIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  92-94— POTTERY. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  No  trade  occupation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Menge  has  already  yielded  his  time  to  you. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  consumed  the  time  allotted  to  you,  -and 
there  are  other  witnesses  to  follow.  We  can  hear  him  when  we  get 
through,  unless  it  is  a  very  brief  statement. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Just  a  brief  oral  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  would  he  want  ? 

Mr.  BLAKE.  About  three  or  four  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  not  want  to  cut  him  off;  I  just  do  not 
want  to  have  him  go  in  ahead  of  other  witnesses,  but  if  it  is  only  for 
a  minute  or  two,  I  will  hear  him.  If  he  wants  to  make  a  long  state- 
ment we  will  hear  him  when  we  get  through  with  these  other  wit- 
nesses. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  say,  if  it  is  only  a  minute  or  two  we  will  hear 
him  now. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  Thank  you. 

WAGES  IN  THE  POTTERY  INDUSTRY. 

CHICAGO,  January  IS,  191 S. 
Chairman  UNDERWOOD, 

Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  Chicago  papers  have  contained  accounts  during  the  last  few  days 
of  hearings  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  which  the  men  interested  in 
maintaining  the  tariff  on  earthenware,  pottery,  tiles,  etc.,  defended  the  present  tariff 
on  these  wares.  Apparently  the  arguments  used  were  that  a  reduction  of  the  tariff 
would  lower  the  American  workman  to  the  level  of  his  European  competitor. 

During  the  past  year  I  have  become  closely  acquainted  with  the  pottery  industry 
and  the  making  of  tiles  in  this  country  and  in  England,  Germany,  and  Austria,  in 
the  course  of  a  study  I  was  asked  to  make  for  the  Bureau  of  Labor.  I  do  not  wish 
to  burden  you  with  a  long  exposition  of  this  subject,  but  only  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fallacy  of  the  arguments  of  men  who  claim  that  the  protective  tariff  raises  the 
wages  of  our  potters  and  that  the  conditions  under  which  they  work  are  better  than 
those  in  foreign  countries. 

The  white-ware  potters  of  Trenton  and  East  Liverpool  are,  it  is  true,  well  paid. 
They  have  short  hours  and  can  to  a  great  extent  control  the  conditions  under  which 
they  work,  but  it  is  not  the  tariff  which  has  achieved  these  results  for  them;  it  is  their 
strong  organization,  the  National  Brotherhood  of  Operative  Potters.  The  women  in 
this  same  field  are  unorganized,  and  they  are  poorly  paid  and  are  not  protected  at  all 
against  the  dangers  of  lead  poisoning,  as  they  would  be  were  they  working  in  English 
or  German  potteries. 

The  "art  and  utility"  pottery  trade  of  the  Zanesville  district  and  the  tile  works  of 
Ohio  and  other  States  enjoy,  according  to  our  consul  in  Staffordshire,  as  much  pro- 
tection from  the  tariff  as  does  the  white-ware  branch,  but  here  you  will  find  wages 
wretchedly  low,  women  working  for  85  cente  to  $1.10  a  day;  men  from  $1.35  to  $1.65; 
skilled  dippers  of  many  years'  experience  making  less  than  $2  a  day.  This  is  because 
these  branches  are  unorganized,  and  in  the  Zanesville  district  no  other  work  but 
this  can  be  obtained.  It  is  not  an  alien  industry;  the  workpeople  are  all  Americans 
except  in  a  few  tile  factories.  Their  late  of  lead  poisoning  is  more  than  twice  as  great 
as  that  of  the  white-ware  potters,  owing  to  the  more  dangerous  glaze  which  is  used 
and  to  the  poverty  of  (he  workers. 

As  for  conditions  in  those  potteries  and  tile  works,  it  seems  absurd  to  talk  of  lowering 
American  standards  to  the  level  of  the  European,  for  the  latter  is  so  much  higher. 
The  Englishman  or  German  works  under  a  system  of  factory  control  which  eliminates 
as  far  as  possible,  in  our  present  state  of  knowledge,  the  danger  of  lead  poisoning.  It 
is  recognized  that  ho  is  employed  in  a  dangerous  trade  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  pro- 
tection. Our  American  potters  and  tile  workers,  men  and  women,  work  in  an  atmos- 
phere of  poisonous  dust  and  the  barest  essentials  of  sanitary  control  are  wanting.  As 


SCHEDULE  B.  683 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

a  result,  with  less  than  one-quarter  of  the  workers  we  have  almost  twice  as  many  cases 
of  lead  poisoning  in  a  year. 

The  protective  tariff  does  not  secure  fair  wages  for  the  workers  in  the  pottery  and 
tile  industry.  \Vhere  wages  are  fair,  they  are  the  result  of  trade-unioniam.  The 
unorganized  branches  are  dangerous  and  a  detriment,  not  an  advantage,  to  the  com- 
munities which  harbor  them,  because  of  the  character  of  the  work,  the  lack  of  sanitary 
control,  and  the  low  wages  which  bring  in  their  train  the  undernourishment  predis- 
posing to  lead  poisoning. 

These  unorganized  potters  and  tile  workers  have  no  spokesman,  but  there  are 
physicians  in  the  Zanesville  district  who  could  speak  for  them  and  there  are  intelligent 
men  and  women  among  them  who,  if  they  wore  not  afraid,  could  testify  to  what  I  have 
said.     If  you  wish  any  further  details,  Bulletin  No.  104  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  will  • 
furnish  them. 

Yours,  sincerely, 

ALICE  HAMILTON. 

TELEGRAM  OF  BURLEY  &  TYRELL  CO.,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  January  7,  191S. 
lf<  m.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

As  extensive  handlers  of  both  foreign  and  domestic  earthenware  and  French  and 
German  china  we  strongly  recommend  a  duty  as  follows:  Earthenware,  25  per  cent 
and  china  35  per  cent. 

BURLEY  &  TYRELL  Co. 
PARAGRAPH  95. 

Articles  and  wares  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral 
substances,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  whether  susceptible  of 
decoration  or  not,  if  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem;  if  decorated,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  carbon,  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  electrodes,  brushes, 
plates,  and  disks,  all  the  foregoing  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  car- 
bon, thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  talc,  see  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  111. 

PARAGRAPH  96. 

Gas  retorts,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  lava  tips  for  burners,  ten  cents 
per  gross  and  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem;  carbons  for  electric  lighting, 
wholly  or  partly  finished,  made  entirely  from  petroleum  coke,  thirty-five 
cents  per  hundred  feet ;  if  composed  chiefly  of  lampblack  or  .retort  carbon, 
sixty-five  cents  per  hundred  feet ;  filter  tubes,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valo- 
rem ;  porous  carbon  pots  for  electric  batteries,  without  metallic  connections, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

CARBON. 

STATEMENT    OF   J.    W.    VOORHIS,    ESQ.,    REPRESENTING    THE 
AMERICAN  EVER  READY  CO. 

PARAGRAPH  95. 

Mr.  VOORHIS.  J.  W.  Voorhis,  representing  the  American  Ever 
Ready  Co. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  the  paragraph  to  which  you  will  speak? 

Mr.  VOORIIIS.  Paragraph  95  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Proceed. 

Mr.  VOORHIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  item  in  question 
as  defined  in  the  tariff  act  of  1909  is  ''Carbon  not  especially  provided 
for  in  this  section  is  dutiable  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem."  This  is  a 
sort  of  misnomer,  for  this  article,  which  is  the  article  in  question  which 
I  wish  to  dwell  upon,  is  carbon  clinkers. 


684  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96  -CARBON. 

The  paragraph  in  the  act  leads  as  follows: 

Articles  and  wares  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances, 
not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  whether  susceptible  of  decoration  or  not, 
if  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  decorated, 
forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  carbon,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  electrodes,  brushes,  plates,  and  disks,  all  the  fore- 
going, composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  carbon,  thirty  per  centum  ad  valorem, 

We  pray  that  this  article  be  placed  on  the  free  list  as  coal  gas 
retort  carbon  clinkers.  Coal  gas  retort  carbon,  as  its  name  denotes, 
is  a  by-product  in  the  manufacture  of  illuminating  gas  where  coal  is 
exclusively  used.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  the  manufacture  of 
illuminating  gas  is  carried  on  in  this  country — one  where  coal  is  used 
exclusively  and  the  other  where  oil  is  used  and  produces  what  is 
known  as  water  gas. 

Coal  gas  retort  carbon  is  a  residue  which  remains  in  the  retorts  and 
is  only  procured  when  these  retorts  are  cleaned,  which,  in  accordance 
with  the  style  of  the  retort  in  use  by  the  gas  works,  is  done  between 
three  and  six  times  annually.  This  material,  which  is  nothing 
but  a  clinker  or  slag,  is  a  morpheus  carbon,  and  is  formed  on  the 
inside  of  the  retort,  caused  by  the  distillation  of  coal  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  illuminating  gas.  It  is  not  an  earthy  or  mineral  substance, 
and  should  not  be  so  classified  as  such  in  the  tariff  act. 

The  gas  works  in  the  United  States  manufacturing  gas  exclusively 
from  coal  are  very  limited  and  are  becoming  less  each  year,  because 
it  is  cheaper  to  make  gas  from  oil,  which  is  known  as  water  gas. 
The  residue  or  clinker  from  retorts  making  water  gas  is  not  the  same 
material  as  the  article  referred  to  in  this  statement.  It  will  not  be 
many  years  before  the  manufacture  of  illuminating  gas  from  coal 
is  entirely  abandoned. 

All  manufacturers  of  electrical  apparatus  requiring  carbon  of  this 
nature  will  be  compelled  to  draw  their  supplies  of  this  material 
from  abroad,  where,  owing  to  the  many  different  and  varied  uses 
of  the  by-products  and  other  conditions  both  in  England  and  con- 
tinental Europe,  it  pays  them  to  manufacture  illuminating  gas  solely 
from  coal,  because  they  derive  a  large  revenue  from  the  sale  of  these 
by-products,  such  as  sal  ammoniac,  coal  tar,  sulphate  of  ammonia, 
and  many  other  articles  which  are  produced  in  the  distillation  of 
coal  from  which  illuminating  gas  is  made.  Therefore,  it  is  necessary 
for  the  American  manufacturers  to  depend  on  the  production  from 
abroad  to  keep  them  supplied.  This  material  when  ground  is  one 
of  (lie  principal  factors  in  the  manufacture  of  dry  batteries. 

1  lie  annual  consumption  of  this  material  in  the  United  States  is 
approximately  between  six  and  ten  thousand  tons  per  annum.  The 
domestic  production  of  this  material  is  approximately  fifteen  hundred 
tons  per  annum.  It  is  not  nearly  sufficient  to  cover  the  require- 
ments, and  the  result  is  that  importation  has  to  be  resorted  to  and  a 
substitute  for  (his  material  has  to  be  used  when,  for  some  reason 
or  other,  this  material  can  not  be  procured  abroad.  The  substitute, 
which  is  petroleum  coke,  a  residue  obtained  in  the  distillation  or 
refining  of  petroleum,  is  not  equal  to  coal-gas  retort  carbon  clinkers 
and  has  to  be  mixed  with  a  high-priced  graphite  to  increase  its 
efficiency  equal  to  coal-gas  retort  carbon,  which  increases  the  cost 
of  production  of  dry  batteries. 


SCHEDULE  B.  685 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

With  the  ever-increasing  dry-battery  business  there  should  be  no 
restriction  in  the  way  of  duty  or  otherwise  over  this  factor,  which 
plays  such  an  important  part  in  the  manufacture  of  these  batteries 
that  are  a  necessity  to  a  large  number  of  our  people. 

The  revenue  derived  from  the  importation  of  this  material  at  the 
present  time  is  only  a  very  minor  item.  In  fact,  the  duty  being 
removed  would  not  be  of  any  moment  in  the  revenue  of  this  Govern- 
ment. 

It  is  impossible  to-manufacture  coal-gas  retort  carbon  commercially 
in  this  country.  The  present  duty  on  this  material  does  not  benefit 
any  manufacturer,  nor  does  it  protect  any  American  labor.  All  the 
efforts  of  gas  manufacturers  in  this  country  are  directed  toward  one 
point,  and  that  is  to  decrease  the  accumulation  of  this  clinker  in 
the  retorts,  which  in  itself  is  the  best  evidence  that  the  duty  does 
not  benefit  them,  as  they  do  not  regard  any  duty  placed  upon  this 
article  any  inducement  whatever  to  manufacture  this  material. 

We  respectfully  pray  that  your  honorable  committee  will  recom- 
mend to  change  paragraph  95  of  the  act  of  1909,  eliminating  carbon 
clinkers  from  "carbon  not  specially  provided  for,"  at  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  and  place  same  on  the  free  list,  and  that  you  define  this 
as  coal-gas  retort  carbon  clinkers. 

BRIEFS  SUBMITTED  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  CARBON  BRUSHES. 

ST.  MARYS,  PA.,  January  $,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  in  regard  to  a  revision  of  the  tariff 
on  carbon  brushes. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  on  carbon  brushes,  carbon  electrodes,  and  carbon  plates 
is  30  per  cent.  This  is  not  sufficient  to  protect  the  American  manufacturers,  as  in 
the  process  of  manufacture  of  carbon  brushes  and  electrodes  the  labor  is  more  than 
one-half  the  cost,  and  as  the  labor  in  Germany  and  France  is  so  much  cheaper  we 
feel  that  a  protection  of  50  per  cent  should  be  given  domestic  manufacturers  to  equalize 
the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production.  Every  carbon  brush,  in  going  through  the 
factory,  is  handled  from  20  to  31  times  before  it  is  ready  for  the  consumer. 

The  importation  of  carbon  brushes  is  on  the  increase  right  along,  although  the 
American  product  is  equal  in  every  respect  to  the  foreign  goods,  and  therefore  the 
duty  should  be  increased  on  all  classes  of  carbon  material  for  the  protection  of  the 
American  manufacturer. 

We  trust  that  you  will  give  this  question  your  careful  consideration.  Thanking 
you,  we  are. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

SPEER  CARBON  Co., 
J.  S.  SPEER, 
President  and  General  Manager. 

ST.  MARYS,  PA.,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives. 

DEAR  SIR:  Our  president,  Mr.  ,T.  S.  Speer,  wrote  you  on  the  3d  instant  in  regard  to 
the  present  rate  of  duty  on  carbon  brushes,  electrodes,  and  other  carbon  articles 
(paragraph  95  of  the  law  of  1909V 

He  requested  me  to  send  you  samples  of  our  product  to  show  the  amount  of  labor  on 
fiame.  and  I  am  sending  under  separate  cover  throe  small  samples  of  carbon  brushes, 
showing  the  hand  milling  which  requires  not  less  than  20  separate  operations  before 
the  brush  is  finished.  This  is  a  brush  that  is  sold  by  us  at  3.3  cents  each,  and  is  equal 
in  every  way  to  the  imported  brushes. 


686  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

The  importation  of  carbon  brushes  and  electrodes  is  very  large  and  is  increasing 
very  rapidly,  and  the  present  tariff  rate  does  not  give  the  American  manufacturer 
sufficient  protection.  The  rate  at  present  is  30  per  cent,  and  this  should  be  increased 
to  50  per  cent  for  the  reason  that  this  higher  rate  is  necessary  to  equalize  the  difference 
in  the  cost  of  production. 

Yours,  truly,  SPEER  CARBON  Co., 

G.  P.  FRYLING,  Treasurer. 

BRADFORD,  PA.,  U.  S.  A.,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  manufacturers  of  carbon  brushes  for  electric  motors  and  generators 
we  are  interested  in  the  tariff  on  this  class  of  material. 

Competition  at  the  present  time  is  very  keen,  as  there  are  a  large  number  of  manu- 
facturers in  this  country.  Under  the  present  tariff,  the  sale  of  foreign  brushes  has 
increased  materially,  and  we  are  very  apprehensive  of  the  results  that  might  follow 
from  any  curtailment  of  protection.  One  point  which  we  desire  to  emphasize  is  that 
the  cost  of  production  of  carbon  articles  is  composed  largely  of  labor.  Our  pay  roll 
constitutes  by  far  our  largest  item  of  expense,  and  the  labor  is  of  a  kind  that  is  ex- 
tremely well  paid. 

We  feel  that  the  circumstances  warrant  a  tariff  of  60  per  cent.  Our  company  is 
engaged  exclusively  in  brush  manufacture,  and  whether  we  expand  to  include  other 
carbon  materials,  for  example,  electric-light  carbons,  will  depend  largely  upon  what 
measure  of  protection  we  enjoy.  It  is  our  firm  belief  that  a  reduction  from  the  present 
tariff  will  result  in  forcing  out  of  business  at  least  some  of  the  smaller  plants  which 
are  now  manufacturing  carbon. 

Very  truly,  yours,  CORLISS  CARBON  Co., 

OTTO  KOCH, 

President  and  Manager. 

PROTEST  AGAINST  REDUCTION  OF  DUTY  ON  CARBONS. 

PARAGRAPH  95. 

STACKPOLE  CARBON  Co., 
St.  Marys,  Pa.,  January  9,  1913. 
CONGRESSMAN  TNDERWOOD. 

Chairman  of  the  Tariff  Committee,   Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORED  SIR:  We  wish  to  enter  our  protest,  as  manufacturers  of  carbon  and  carbon 
products,  against  any  reduction  of  duty  on  this  product. 

"We  are  obliged  to  pay  $1.75  to  82  for  ordinary  labor  in  our  works  to  manufacture  the 
same  carbon  that  the  foreign  carbon  manufacturers  pay  as  low  as  35  to  50  cents  a  day 
for  labor  to  do  the  same  class  of  work. 

The  writer  absolutely  knows  this  to  be  the  case  from  the  fact  that  several  years  ago 
we  contemplated  manufacturing  a  grade  of  carbon  that  was  manufactured  by  a  foreign 
carbon  works,  and  one  of  the  parties  that  was  interested  in  this  foreign  carbon  works 
contemplated  taking  stock  in  our  company  and  gave  us  the  manufactured  cost  of 
this  carbon  abroad  in  their  plant  and  what  it  would  cost  to  make  it  in  this  country; 
and  I  consider  the  present  duty  on  carbons  is  entirely  too  low.  Even  at  the  present 
duty  on  foreign  carbons  the  foreign  manufacturers  are  in  a  position  to  undersell  us 
on  certain  lines  of  carbon,  and  one  case  in  particular  we  quoted  our  cost  price  on  a 
particular  carbon  to  find  out  how  low  the  foreigner  could  go,  and  the  exporter  of  this 
particular  foreign  carbon  went  below  the  price  we  quoted,  which  was  cost;  so  this 
will  give  you  some  idea  for  the  reasons  that  we  enter  our  protest  against  reduction  of 
the  tariff  on  carbon  products  and  the  reason  why  we  ask  for  an  increase. 

If  the  foreign  carbon  manufacturers  can  bring  their  product  here  and  pay  the  present 
duty  and  undersell  us  in  cases  I  know  of  where  we  have  quoted  our  cost  price  in 
order  to  find  out  how  cheap  they  could  sell  their  product  at  a  profit,  we  certainly 
have  just  reasons  to  ask  for  an  increase  in  duty  on  this  particular  product. 

Our  books  are  open  to  inspection  of  any  committee,  and  we  are  not  trying  to  earn 
dividends  on  watered  stock  or  inflated  valuations.  Our  investment  represents  actual 
cash  value  and  every  share  of  stock  that  has  been  issued  by  this  company  has  been 
paid  for  in  cash. 

Hoping  yon  will  give  this  some  consideration,  we  remain, 
Yours,  A- cry  truly, 

STACKPOLE  CARBON  Co., 
H.  C.  STACKPOLE,   Treasurer. 


SCHEDULE  B.  687 

PARAGRAPHS   95-96— CARBON. 
BRIEF  OF  THE  CHAVANT  MANUFACTURING  CO.,  JERSEY  CITY,  N.  J. 

PARAGRAPH  95. 

JERSEY  CITY,  N.  J.,  January  6,  191S. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  I  desire  to  file  this  brief  in  support  of  a  proposed  amendment  to  the 
pravision  in  paragraph  95,  tariff  act  of  1909,  for  articles  composed  of  earthy  or  mineral 
substances. 

Following  is  paragraph  95,  tariff  act  of  1909,  as  it  is  desired  to  have  it  amended,  the 
words  to  be  omitted  being  inclosed  in  brackets  and  those  to  be  substituted  being 
italicized: 

''95.  [Articles  and  waresj  Manufactures  or  materials  composed  or  consisting  wholly 
or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this 
section,  whether  susceptible  of  decoration  or  not,  if  not  decorated  in  any  manner, 
thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  decorated,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
*."  (No  change  suggested  for  remainder  of  paragraph,  which  relates  only  to 
carbon  articles.) 

The  above  amendment  was  drawn  in  order  to  accomplish  what  is  believed  to  have 
been  the  original  intent  of  Congress  and  to  restore  to  said  paragraph  a  wide  variety 
of  manufactured  articles  composed  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances  which  have  been 
excluded  by  judicial  construction.  The  reason  for  the  particular  words  suggested 
in  the  proposed  amendment  is  found  in  the  peculiar  history  of  this  paragraph  and  its 
prototypes.  Probably  in  no  paragraph  in  the  tariff  have  repeated  legislative  efforts 
to  broaden  its  purview  met  with  so  little  success. 

The  provision  first  appeared  as  paragraph  86,  in  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894,  enumerat- 
ing "all  articles  composed  of  earthen  or  mineral  substances,  including  lava  tips  for 
burners."  The  General  Appraisers  held  that  this  did  not  cover  putz  pomade,  a  com- 
pleted article  composed  of  mineral  substances  and  ready  for  immediate  use,  being  a 
metal  polish  put  up  in  small  tin  boxes  in  the  form  of  paste.  The  reason  given  for 
this  conclusion  was  that,  though  it  was  not  questioned  that  the  merchandise — being 
an  "article"  and  "composed  of  *  *  *  mineral  substances " — was  literally  within 
the  language  of  the  provision,  yet  it  should  be  excluded  therefrom  and  thrown  into 
the  catch-all  clause  for  articles  not  enumerated  in  the  act,  on  the  ground  that  the 
paragraph  was  not  intended  to  "cover  a  substance  without  form,"  such  as  the  paste 
in  question,  also  because  the  enumeration  of  lava  tips  "would  indicate  that  Congress 
did  not  intend  the  provision  to  cover  everything  that  was  wholly  or  chiefly  of  mineral 
origin."  (Ramsperger  case,  G.  A.  3280,  T.  D.  16584.) 

The  law  was  then  amended  in  a  broadening  way,  "wares"  being  added  to  the 
previous  word  "articles,"  "earthen"  being  changed  to  "earthy,  "composed" 
being  made  more  definite  by  the  addition  of  "wholly  or  in  chief  value,"  and  the 
provision  for  lava  tips  being  omitted.  (Par.  97,  Dingley  tariff  of  1897.)  But  the 
courts  still  further  narrowed  the  purview  of  the  paragraph  by  holding  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  expressions  "if  not  decorated"  and  if  decorated"  implied  intention  to 
exclude  articles  not  susceptible  of  decoration.  (Dingelstedt  v.  U.  S.,  91  Fed.,  112; 
U.  S.  v.  Downing,  201  U.  S.,  354.) 

The  effect  of  these  authoritative  adjudications  was  to  give  the  paragraph  a  more 
restricted  operation  under  the  act  of  1897  than  the  really  narrower  paragraph  of  the 
preceding  act  of  1894  had  received.  In  Notes  on  Tariff  JRevisipn,  a  publication  pre- 
pared for  the  use  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  drafting  the  Payne  Act  of 
1909,  this  comment  was  made  (p.  109): 

"These  judicial  determinations  have  been  followed  in  hundreds  of  decisions  by 
the  lower  courts  and  by  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers.  The  rulings 

cited  have  all  but  emasculated  paragraph  97  and  have  undoubtedly  caused  a  tre- 
mendous loss  to  the  revenue;  for  the  articles  excluded  from  classification  under  this 
paragraph,  where  they  would  have  yielded  35  per  cent  duty,  have,  in  the  vast 
majority  of  instances,  been  relegated  to  the  provision  for  nonenumerated  articles 
dutiable  at  only  20  per  cent.  The  remedy  is  to  amend  the  paragraph  so  as  to  provide 
that  such  articles  of  earthy  or  mineral  substances  as  would  otherwise  fall  within  the 
terms  of  the  paragraph  shall  not  be  excluded  therefrom  because  they  are  not  suscep- 
tible of  decoration,  but  shall  be  dutiable  under  the  provision  therein  for  such  articles 
when  not  decorated." 

With  this  information  before  it  as  to  the  results  of  its  legislation,  Congress  made 
another  effort  to  extend  the  paragraph  by  adding  the  words  "whether  susceptible 


688  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  95-96— CABBON. 

of  decoration  or  not."  These  new  words  have,  of  course,  been  given  some  effect, 
but  the  courts  have  followed  the  previous  policy  of  imputing  to  the  paragraph  the 
narrowest  possible  intendment.  For  instance,  the  Court  of  Customs  Appeals  held 
that  the  law  did  not  cover  merchandise  which  unquestionably  was  "articles  or  wares," 
and  was  "composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  *  *  *  mineral  substances."  (Salo- 
mon v.  U.  S.,  2  Ct.  Gust.  Appls.,  92,  T.  D.  31635;  U.  S.  v.  Embossing  Co.,  3  Ct.  Cust. 
Appls.,  T.  D.  32536;  Bartley  v.  U.  S.,  3  Ct.  Cust.  Appls.,  T.  D.  32961.) 

As  showing  the  narrow  distinctions  forced  upon  the  court,  it  is  pointed  out  that 
in  two  of  these  decisions  the  merchandise  was  held  to  be  "articles"  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  catch-all  clause  of  paragraph  480  (under  which  the  court  placed  them), 
but  not  "articles"  within  the  meaning  of  the  paragraph  now  in  question. 

The  Salomon  case,  just  cited,  related  to  powdered  talc.  The  reason  given  by  the 
court  for  excluding  it  from  the  mineral  paragraph  was  that  the  words  "composed  of" 
meant  "made  up  of  a  mineral  substance,  and  not  the  substance  itself,  which  the 
ground  talc  clearly  is." 

In  the  Embossing  Co.  case  the  articles  in  dispute  consisted  of  so-called  plasticine 
and  plastilina,  which  were  concededly  of  mineral  origin  and  were  completed  articles, 
ready  for  the  ultimate  consumer,  being  in  small  boxes  in  a  form  adapting  them  for 
their  intended  use,  chiefly  by  young  children  for  modeling  purposes,  both  at  school 
and  as  toys  at  home.  It  is  found  at  the  toy  counters  of  department  stores.  The 
reason  given  for  excluding  it  from  the  paragraph  was  that  the  law  was  not  intended 
to  cover  merchandise  having  no  "specific  or  definite  form  or  shape." 

This  decision  was  followed  in  the  Bartley  case,  which  related  to  so-called  plate 
powder  put  up  in  small  boxes  for  retail,  with  sealed  printed  coverings  containing 
directions  for  use,  therefore  being  in  its  final  condition  and  completely  ready  for  use 
by  the  ultimate  consumer  in  polishing  silver.  The  court  said  that  the  paragraph 
could  not  be  held  to  cover  an  impalpable  powder  like  that  just  described. 

The  Board  of  General  Appraisers  went  even  further  and  held  that  the  word  "com- 
posed" should,  by  reason  of  its  etymological  significance,  be  construed  as  relating 
only  to  compositions,  and  not  including  articles  made  from  a  single  material;  but 
this  ruling  was  reversed  by  the  Customs  Court.  (U.  S.  v.  Tamm,  2  Ct.  Cust.  Appls., 
425.  T.  D.  32173.) 

The  foregoing  is  not  meant  as  a  criticism  of  the  various  judicial  tribunals  concerned 
in  making  the  rulings  referred  to,  nor  as  suggesting  that  strong  reasons  did  not  exist 
for  their  conclusions.  The  application  of  their  decisions,  however,  leaves  the  law 
uneven  in  its  practical  operation.  Suppose  the  plate  powder  in  the  Bartley  case  had 
been  pressed  into  cakes,  the  same  as  some  other  well-known  articles  of  similar  use, 
probably  it  would  then  have  been  held  to  be  within  the  mineral-substance  paragraph, 
because  having  a  specific  form.  The  same  is  true  of  the  talc  involved  in  the  Salomon 
case,  if.  instead  of  having  been  ground  to  powder,  it  had  been  ground  into  disks, 
rubes,  or  other  forms.  From  the  legislative  standpoint  no  reason  exists  why  in  the 
one  case  the  duty  should  be  20  per  cent  and  in  the  other  35  per  cent.  Our  purpose  is 
to  secure  the  adoption  of  a  form  of  words  that  will  result  in  a  uniform  rate  of  duty, 
whether  the  merchandise  shall  have  a  specific  form  or  otherwise. 

Under  the  traditional  legislative  policy  that  increases  duty  in  accordance  with  the 
labor  that  goes  into  the  production  of  an  article,  the  rate  of  35  per  cent  would  have 
been  much  more  appropriate  on  plasticine,  plastilina,  and  plate  powder,  which  are 
carefully  prepared  articles,  than  on  some  of  the  much  simpler  articles  of  a  specific 
form  which  the  court  has  held  were  properly  so  assessed. 

In  order  to  meet  the  decisions  above  cited,  to  secure  symmetry  of  rate,  and  to  restore 
i ho  effect  which  it  is  very  likely  Congress  intended  the  provision  should  have  from 
iho  very  beginning  in  1S94,  it  is  necessary  to  use  words  not  subject  to  the  limitations 
which  the  courts  have  attached  to  the  present  form  of  expression.  It  is  thought  that 
this  can  surely  bo  accomplished  in  the  way  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  this  brief, 
namely,  by  striking  out  the  ineffective  words  ''articles  and  wares"  and  inserting  in 
lieu  thereof  ''manufactures  and  materials,"  as  well  as  adding  "consisting." 

The  use  of  the  word  "manufactures'1  was  suggested  by  the  Customs  Court  in  the 
Embossing  Co.  case,  where  it  said: 

"Had  Congress  intended  to  change  the  meaning  given  to  'articles  and  wares'  by 
the  tribunals  whose  duty  it  was  to  interpret  the  paragraph,  it  could  have  done  so 
very  readily  by  substituting  for  the  words  'articles  and  wares'  the  word  'manufac- 
tures.'  ' 

The  word  "materials"  might  not  ho  necessary  were  it.  not  for  the  strong  judicial 
inclination  to  give  the  provision  a  narrow  scope.  It  is  possible,  in  view  of  this  ten- 
dency, that  the  icrni  "manufactures,"  by  itself,  would  be  held  applicable  only  to 


SCHEDULE  B.  689 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

articles  of  substantial  structure,  that  is,  in  definite  and  specific  forms,  and  completely 
ready  for  ultimate  use.     So  narrow  a  meaning  could  not  be  imputed  to  "materials.  ' 

The  new  word  "consisting"  probably  would  not  be  necessary  in  other  paragraphs 
of  the  act  which  have  not  been  so  narrowly  construed,  but  in  view  of  the  disposition 
to  restrict  the  paragraph,  it  is  prudent  to  make  the  provision  in  question  as  explicit  as 
possible.  That  at  least  can  do  no  harm. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  suggested  amendment,  while  having  the  effect  of  assuring 
the  desired  classification,  would  also  include  crude  articles  which  ought  to  be  free  of 
duty.  This  is  answered  by  pointing  to  paragraph  626,  which  will  presumably  be  reen- 
acted,  and  which  places  on  the  free  list: 

"Minerals,  crude  or  not  advanced  in  value  or  condition  by  refining  or  grinding,  or  by 
other  process  of  manufacture,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section. 

This  specific  language  would  retain  within  the  free  list  any  imports  now  classified 
there.    The  only  effect  of  the  proposed  amendment  would  be  to  place  within  para- 
graph 95  articles  which  by  judicial  action  have  been  taken  out  of  tnat  paragraph. 
Respectfully, 

CHAVANT  MANUFACTURING  Co., 

Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

BRIEF  OF  THE  CHAMPION  CARBON  CO.,  CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO.  January  11,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  It  was  my  intention  to  have  appeared. before  your  committee  during 
the  adjustment  of  the  tariff  schedule  on  carbon,  and  because  of  unavoidable  conditions 
which  prevented  my  being  present,  I  wish  to  add  my  protest  to  any  reduction  of  the 
present  tariff,  and  at  the  same  time  emphasize  to  you  many  reasons  why  the  tariff  on 
carbon  products  of  every  description  should  be  increased  rather  than  reduced. 

It  is  only  natural  that  the  importer  and  domestic  manufacturer  should  be  far  apart, 
but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  importations  under  the  present  tariff  have  increased 
enormously  and  that  home  manufactures  have  been  unable  to  increase  their  output 
anything  like  an  apportionate  amount,  shows  conclusively  the  necessity  and  justness 
of  further  protection  for  American  manufactures  of  carbon. 

I  would  say  and  urge  that  your  honorable  committee  increase  the  duty  on  flaming 
arc  carbons  to  at  least  50  per  cent  and  on  brushes,  electrodes,  plates,  disks,  and  that 
class  of  carbons  to  50  per  cent.  Nothing  less  would  be  high  enough  to  cover  the 
difference  in  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  this  country  and  Germany  and  France,  where 
most  of  the  imported  product  comes  from. 

No  statistics  give  us  the  exact  consumption  of  the  various  forms  of  carbons,  but  we 
who  are  constantly  canvassing  the  consumers,  know  and  fully  understand  the  tremen- 
dous increase  in  the  sale  of  foreign  carbons  and  realize  that  the  importers,  because  of 
the  German  and  French  labor  being  fully  not  more  than  one-third  of  our  cost  of  labor, 
are  getting  rich,  and  we  feel  that  the  above  increase  is  necessary  to  give  even  moderate 
protection  to  domestic  manufactures. 

Now,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  our  product  is  used  only  by  municipalities  and  large 
corporations  and  does  not  affect  the  great  common  people  nor  the  laborer,  except  as 
moderate  and  just  protection  will  permit  us  to  maintain  our  present  scale  of  wages, 
may  we  urge  that  you  increase  the  duty  rather  than  decrease  it? 

Most  respectfully  submitted  by 

THE  CHAMPION  CARBON  Co., 
By  CLAY  B.  STEELE, 

Vice  President  and  General  Manager. 

STATEMENT    OF    HUGO    REISINGER,    OF    11   BROADWAY,    NEW 
YORK,  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  ELECTRIC-LIGHT  CARBONS,  ETC. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  kindly  state  what  paragraph  you  wish  to 
talk  about? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Paragraphs  95  and  96,  eJectric-light  carbons,  bat- 
tery carbons,  and  brushes. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 44 


690  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Reisinger. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
had  an  opportunity  of  making  oral  statement  to  the  Committee  on 
Ways  ana  Means  on  Monday,  November  23,  1908,  on  the  subject  of  a 
duty  on  electric-light  carbons,  battery  carbons,  and  brushes,  and  I 
pointed  out  at  that  time  that  by  procuring  from  the  Fifty-fifth  Con- 
gress an  enactment  of  a  practically  prohibitory  duty  on  this  class  of 
goods  the  trust,  known  as  the  National  Carbon  Co.,  has  been  able  to 
prevent  the  importation  of  low-grade  carbons  entirely  and  to  secure 
such  an  amount  of  protection  on  the  high-grade  carbons  as  to  enable 
them  to  control  80  per  cent  of  the  output  of  this  kind. 

After  I  had  spoken,  a  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  J.  S.  Crider,  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  representing  the  National  Carbon  Co.  (see  hearing, 
pp.  1545  to  1551),  and  in  view  of  that  statement  I  now  beg  again  leave 
to  respectfully  submit  in  writing  a  few  additional  suggestions  on  this 
very  important  subject. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  my  statement  made  before  the  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means  on  November  23,  1908,  that  the  carbon  busi- 
ness was  in  the  hands  of  a  trust  was  not  denied.  On  the  contrary, 
on  page  1459,  in  answer  to  questions  by  Mr.  Underwood,  Mr.  Crider 
conceded  that  his  company  was  the  only  concern  that  made  high-grade 
carbons  and  that  it  had  a  monopoly  of  the  American  market. 

It  also  appears  from  his  testimony  on  the  same  page  that  his  com- 
pany had  $4,500,000  of  preferred  stock  (presumably  representing  the 
actual  capital  investment),  and  $5,500,000  common  stock  (presum- 
ably representing  expectations  or  hopes,  in  fact  water) .  The  National 
Carbon  Co.  are  paying  7  per  cent  dividends  on  the  preferred  stock  and 
6  per  cent  dividends  on  the  common,  and  on  November  7,  1910,  paid 
an  extra  dividend  on  the  common  stock  of  15  per  cent.  Besides  they 
have  accumulated  an  enormous  surplus. 

The  Carbon  Trust  1ms  been  protected  by  an  unreasonably  high  rate 
of  duty  since  the  Dingley  tariff  went  into  effect,  and  in  fact  was 
founded  on  the  strength  of  this  tariff. 

The  present  administration,  as  everyone  knows,  promised  a  down- 
ward revision,  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  explain  to  you  how  this 
revision,  which  is  always  advertised  as  "downward,"  looks  in  reality. 

The  duty  under  the  Dingley  tariff  was  90  cents  per  100  carbons. 
This  rate  was  "reduced"  by  the  Payne- Aldrich  tariff  to  65  cents  per 
100  feet,  but  the  adding  of  the  wor<d  "feet"  raised  the  duty  consid- 
erable, because  we  paid  90  cents  duty  on  carbons  of  2  and  3  feet 
length  and  now  have  to  pay  65  cents  on  carbons  of  1  foot  length,  so 
while  in  fact  the  duty  appears  at  first  sight  to  the  general  public  as  a 
reduction  it  was  materially  advanced,  which  illustrates  that  mode 
of  tariff  making. 

I  claim  that  the  present  rate  of  duty  on  electric-light  carbons  is 
exorbitant,  and  I  can  prove  by  my  books  that  the  import  in  the  main 
carbon  for  inclosed  arc  lamps  has  fallen  off  from  40  to  50  per  cent 
since  the  new  tariff  has  been  in  force,  because  it  is  now  absolutely 
impossible  to  compete  against  the  trust.  Our  business  is  now  solely 
confined  to  such  special  qualities  which  the  trust  is  not  able  to  manu- 
facture to  the  satisfaction  of  the  consumer,  and  therefore  the  high 
duty  is  just  as  unreasonable  on  the  special  carbons  as  on  the  regular 
inclosed  carbons. 


SCHEDULE  B.  691 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

The  low  grade  of  carbons,  made  entirely  from  petroleum  coke,  on 
which  the  duty  is  35  cents  per  100  feet,  can  not  oe  imported  at  all, 
not  even  if  they  were  entered  free,  inasmuch  as  they  can,  on  account 
of  the  raw  material,  be  manufactured  much  lower  in  this  country 
than  abroad.  This  is  probably  why  the  duty  was  put  on  that  class 
of  carbons  comparatively  low. 

I  claim  that  electric-light  carbons  can  be  manufactured  in  this 
country  as  cheap  or  even  cheaper  than  abroad,  because  the  raw 
material  is  right  here,  and  while  the  labor  is  double  here  what  it  is 
abroad,  the  American  workman  accomplishes  through  his  intelli- 
gent and  quick  work,  twice  the  amount,  whereby  the  difference  is 
equalized.  Besides,  no  skilled  labor  is  necessary,  because  the  manu- 
facturing is  done  mostly  by  machinery. 

The  heavy  tax  on  electric-light  carbons  increases  materially  the 
burden  of  taxation,  which  must  be  imposed  by  cities,  towns,  and 
villages  on  all  their  taxpayers.  It  is  an  unjust  tax,  which  has  resulted 
in  the  creation  of  monopoly,  and  I  therefore  respectfully  request  that 
the  duty  on  electric-light  carbons  be  reduced  from  65  cents  per  100 
feet  to  20  cents  per  100  feet,  as  already  suggested  by  me  before  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  on  November  23,  1908. 

Paragraph  95,  which  reads  as  follows: 

Articles  and  wares  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral  sub- 
stances, not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  whether  susceptible  of  decoration 
or  not,  if  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  deco- 
rated, forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  carbon,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this 
section,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  electrodes,  brushes,  plates,  and  disks,  all 
the  foregoing  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  carbon,  thirty  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 

I  respectfully  request  that  the  portion  of  this  paragraph  relating 
to  carbons  should  be  as  follows: 

Carbons  for  electric  lighting,  wholly  or  partly  finished,  20  cents  per  100  feet. 

And  that  paragraph  96,  which  relates  to  various  other  articles, 
including  manufactures  of  carbon,  be  changed  so  that  it  will  read 
more  specifically  as  to  carbon  and  carbon  products,  as  follows: 

Carbon  and  all  manufactures  of  same  not  specially  provided  for,  of  which  carbon  is 
the  component  material  of  chief  value,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Dynamo,  generator,  motor,  contact,  and  similar  brushes,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

By  changing  paragraph  96  to  read  as  above  you  will  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  covering  all  manufactures  of  carbon  which  are  already 
on  the  market  and  anything  new  in  the  carbon  line  which  may  in 
future  be  manufactured. 

I  claim  that  if  the  tariff  on  all  carbon  products  for  electric  pur- 
poses be  accordingly  revised  and  reduced  to  a  reasonable  basis,  as 
suggested  by  me,  the  consumer  will  obtain  the  benefit,  and  will  be 
able  to  buy  his  carbon  supplies  at  much  cheaper  prices,  thereby 
enabling  the  central  stations,  isolated  electric  light  plants,  etc.,  to 
produce  much  cheaper  light  and  power,  and  enable  the  manufacturers 
of  dry  batteries,  electrical  novelties,  etc.,  to  successfully  compete  with 
their  strongest  competitor,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer  I  re- 
spectfully ask  you  to  give  this  matter  your  earnest  consideration. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  you  a  manufacturer  of  carbons  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  No ;  I  am  an  importer. 


692  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

Mr.  HILL.  How  many  years  have  you  been  in  the  business  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  About  20  years. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  think  I  misunderstood  one  statement  you  made. 
You  said  there  was  a  large  increase  in  the  duty  on  carbons  under  the 
Payne  bill. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  was  it  not  a  real  decrease  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  No;  a  real  increase. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  duty  under  the  Dingley  law  pro- 
vided for  so  many  carbons  at  such  a  rate  a  carbon,  and  is  it  not  a 
matter  of  fact  that  the  importers  doubled  the  length  of  the  carbons  so 
as  to  cut  the  duty  in  two,  and  then  broke  the  carbons  in  two  after  they 
got  here  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  There  is  no  doubt  on  the  tariff  question  at  all. 
We  import — 

Mr.  HILL  (interposing).  I  know,  it  was  90  cents  a  hundred  carbons. 
How  long  were  those  carbons  under  that  duty  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Two  and  three  feet.  We  get  them  here  in  1-foot 
sizes,  or  whatever  size  we  need. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  duty  under  the  Dingley  law  was  90  cents  a  hundred 
carbons  on  carbons  a  foot  in  length. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  No. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  know  it  did  not  specify  that,  but  was  not  that  the 
intention  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  do  not  know  what  the  intention  was.  I  know 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  intention  was  to  drive  tne  importer  out  of  the 
market  entirely. 

Mr.  HILL.  Oh,  no.  As  a  matter  of  fact  you  have  been  in  business 
20  years.  Were  not  the  length  of  the  carbons  doubled  by  the  importer 
when  that  duty  was  made  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Yes;  even  tripled. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  importer  cut  the  duty  in  two  himself  in  violation 
of  law. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  How  did  they  get  to  the  size  of  1  foot  ?  We  im- 
ported them  16,  18,  and  20  inches,  and  we  are  importing  them  now 
24  inches;  they  are  the  kind  that  are  used  in  lamps. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  not  90  cents  a  hundred  feet  a  lower  rate  of  duty  than 
it  was  under  the  Dingley  law,  when  you  were  importing  carbons  1  foot 
in  length  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Xo;  it  was  much  higher. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  think  you  are  mistaken. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  The  duties  under  the  Payne  law  were  twice  as  high. 
That  is  the  kind  of  reduction  we  are  getting — 

Mr.  PAYNE  (interposing) .  Just  a  moment.  You  can  not  get  out  of 
it  in  that  way.  In  spite  of  the  law,  you  doubled  the  length  of  those 
carbons,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Xo. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Yes;  you  did,  to  get  around  the  duty.  You  got  that 
through  the  courts. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Of  course  we  got  it  through  the  courts,  because 
we  were  ri^ht. 


SCHEDULE  B.  693 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Then  you  come  here  and  say  that  we  did  not  lower  the 
duty,  but  in  fact  raised  it.  It  was  a  lower  duty  on  carbons  a  foot 
long 

Mr.  REISINGER  (interrupting).  We  imported  them  longer  than  a 
foot. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  imported  them  a  foot  long.  You  did  not  import 
them  longer  than  a  foot  after  the  Dingley  law  was  passed. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  That  is  a  mistake.  I  proved  that  we  imported 
16  and  18  inches.  I  gave  evidence  that  we  were  importing  at  that 
time  carbons  longer  than  1  foot. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  never  imported  them  longer  than  a  foot  at  that 
time. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Of  course  we  did. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  imported  them  longer  than  a  foot  up  to  that  time  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Yes;  we  did,  before  the  Dingley  tariff,  16  and  18 
inches. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  contrary  to  the  evidence  introduced  at  that 
tune. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  The  proof  of  the  pudding  is  the  eating.  I  went 
out  into  the  United  States  courts,  and  I  won  out.  The  tariff  said  100 
carbons.  You  did  not  state  what  size  carbons. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  think  it  would  be  entirely  f air,  with  the  tariff  speci- 
fying 95  cents  a  hundred  carbons,  for  you  to  import  carbons  12  feet 
long? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  courts  sustained  your  position  in  that  matter? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Exactly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  are  not  willing  to  admit  that  the  court 
committed  a  fraud  on  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  By  no  means. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  there  a  Carbon  Trust? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Yes,  sir;  admittedly  so.  Mr.  Cridler  admitted 
that  they  had  a  monopoly  of  the  article. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  is  the  name  of  the  trust  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  The  National  Carbon  Co.,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  There  is  no  competition  in  this  country  at  all  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  None  whatsoever. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  long  has  the  trust  been  in  existence  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  think  ever  since  the  passage  of  the  Dingley 
tariff— I  think  since  1899. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  men  are  employed  in  the  industry  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  could  not  tell  you  exactly.  I  would  say  about 
2,000. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  In  this  country  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  would  say  about  that.  That  is  a  statement  I 
am  not  quite  sure  about. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  is  the  total  consumption  as  compared  with  the 
amount  that  is  imported? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  claim  that  80  per  cent  of  the  whole  business  is 
in  the  hands  of  the  trust.  There  is  20  per  cent  imported,  and  of  this 
20  per  cent  at  least  12  per  cent  can  not  be  manufactured  here. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  The  only  competition  the  trust  has  is  competition  from 
abroad  ? 


694  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Yes,  sir;  from  the  imports. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  know,  of  course,  that  there  is  a  trust  abroad  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  No;  there  is  none. 

Mr.  HILL.  None  in  Germany? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Absolutely  none  in  Germany. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  are  sure  there  is  no  trust  in  Germany? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  None.  I  am  very  familiar  with  business  over 
there. 

Mr.  HILL.  Who  do  you  represent  in  this  country? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  Myself. 

Mr.  HILL.  Who  do  you  represent  abroad  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  I  do  not  represent  anybody.     I  buy. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  buy  in  the  market? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  No;  I  buy  from  one  manufacturer. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  manufacturer  is  that? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  C.  Conradty,  Nuremberg,  Germany,  one  of  the 
largest  manufacturers  in  the  world.  It  is  not  a  trust. 

Mr.  HILL.  You  still  think  it  would  be  entirely  proper  for  you  to 
buy  carbons  12  feet  in  length  as  one  carbon,  and  bring  it  in  here, 
if  the  duty  had  not  been  changed  ? 

Mr.  REISINGER.  In  lengths  of  2  and  3  feet,  and  no  longer,  could 
carbons  be  imported  on  account  of  the  excessive  breakage. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  not  ? 

Air.  REISIXGER.  The  longest  carbon  which  could  be  imported 
without  excessive  breakage  is  3  feet. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  you  would  cut  the  duty  into  three  parts  ? 

Mr.  REISIXGER.  There  would  be  no  use  now  in  importing  long- 
length  carbons  with  a  view  of  cutting  them  here  into  smaller  sizes 
and  thereby  reduce  the  duty,  because  the  present  rate  of  duty  speci- 
fies distinctly  65  cents  per  iOO  feet,  notwithstanding  I  am  importing 
carbons  as  long  as  from  2  to  2£  feet,  which  are,  however,  used  in 
the  lamps  in  that  length. 

Mr.  HILL.  If  you  should  happen  to  find  out  that  there  was  a 
foreign  trust  in  carbons- 
Mr.  REISINGER  (interrupting).  There  is  no  foreign  trust.  I  deny 
that,  and  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about.  There  is  no  trust  what- 
soever. There  are  four  large  competitors  in  Germany  alone,  fighting 
among  themselves  all  the  time;  and  there  is  some  competition  in 
France,  too. 

HUGO  REISINGER, 

11  Broadway,  New  York,  April  5,  1911. 
Hon.  OSCAH  W.  UNDERWOOD. 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Ifm??*,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  I  had  the  honor  to  appear  before  the  House  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means 
in  DecemVier,  11)08,  with  reference  to  electric-light  carbons,  when  the  hearings  were 
had  before  that  committee  in  December,  1908. 

Yon  were  at  that  time  a  member  of  this  committee  and  showed  great  interest  in 
the  tariff  on  electric-light  carbons.  In  order  to  refresh  your  memory  on  this  ques- 
tion, I  inclose  herewith  my  statement  and  brief  before  that  committee,  as  well  as  the 
statement  of  the  National  Carbon  Co.,  known  to  the  trade  as  the  Carbon  Trust. 

AH  yon  know,  the  original  draft  of  the  Payne  bill  called  fora  rate  on  electric-light 
carl  ions  of  35  per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  was  subsequently  changed  by  the  Senate 
committtee  to  70  cents  per  100  feet,  and  finally  to  (as  per  Schedule  JB.,  paragraph  96): 

"Gas  retorts,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  lava  tips  for  burners,  ten  cents  per 
gross  and  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem;  carbons  for  electric  lighting,  wholly  or 
partly  finished,  made  entirely  from  petroleum  coke,  thirty-five  cents  per  hundred 


SCHEDULE  B.  695 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

feet;  if  composed  chiefly  of  lampblack  or  retort  carbon,  sixty-five  cents  per  hundred 
feet;  filter  tubes,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  porous  carbon  pots  for  electric 
batteries,  without  metallic  connections,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

With  reference  to  the  35  cents  per  100-foot  rate,  this  does  not  come  into  question  at  all, 
and  really  seems  to  be  a  "joker,"  because  the  high  price  of  petroleum  coke  in  Europe 
prohibits  the  importation  of  these  carbons,  which  are  known  to  the  trade  as  "low- 
grade  carbons." 

The  only  carbons,  therefore,  which  come  into  question  for  importation  are  high- 
grade  carbons,  made  chiefly  of  lampblack,  on  which  carbons  the  duty  is  65  cents  per 
100  feet. 

This  rate  of  duty,  figured  on  ad  valorem  basis,  at  the  rate  of  65  cents  per  100  feet,  is 
all  the  way  from  35  per  cent  to  125  per  cent,  depending  on  the  type  of  carbons  imported, 
an  average,  as  near  as  I  can  figure  out,  of  between  70  per  cent  and  80  per  cent,  which 
stifles  all  competition,  and  which  means  that  the  Carbon  Trust  here  has  absolutely  its 
own  way  as  regards  prices. 

The  Carbon  Trust  has  become  so  strong  by  buying  out  every  independent  carbon 
factory  in  the  United  States  and  by  the  protection  of  the  tariff. 

On  account  of  the  exhorbitant  rate  01  duty,  the  consumer  is  compelled  to  pay  much 
more  for  his  carbons  than  if  there  were  a  reasonable  rate  of  duty  on  this  commodity. 

I  claim  that  a  duty  of  20  cents  per  100  feet  would  be  more  than  ample  protection  on 
carbons,  which,  figured  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  means  about  an  average  of  25  per  cent. 

It  is  a  fact  that  carbons  can  be  manufactured  as  low  here,  if  not  lower,  than  abroad, 
because  the  raw  material  is  right  at  hand,  while  abroad  it  has  to  be  shipped  from  great 
distances. 

For  instance,  domestic  carbons  for  inclosed  arc  lamps  are  sold  by  the  Carbon  Trust 
at  from  $18  to  $24  per  1,000,  while  their  cost  of  manufacture  is  only  from  $7  to  $9  per 
1,000,  against  the  cost  to  me  of  my  imported  carbons,  also  for  inclosed  arc  lamps,  of 
from  $10  to  $14  per  1,000,  f.  o.  b.  European  port;  so  it  will  be  seen  that  even  if  the 
tariff  were  taken  off  altogether,  the  importers  would  still  be  compelled  to  ask  higher 
prices  than  for  the  domestic  carbons. 

Moreover,  there  are  certain  special  carbons  imported,  of  very  fine  grade,  for  use  in 
moving-picture  machines,  flaming  arc  lamps,  etc.,  which  the  trust  is  unable  to  make 
at  all,  and  which  could  be  sold  to  the  consumer  at  much  lower  prices  if  there  were  a 
reasonable  duty  on  carbons. 

Take,  for  instance,  flaming  arc-lamp  carbons;  which  are  used  in  lengths  of  24  inches 
and  cost  between  $30  and  $40  per  1,000  carbons  f.  o.  b.  European  port,  the  duty 
figures  $13  per  1,000  carbons,  or  1.3  cents  each.  As  two  carbons  are  used  in  a  lamp  and 
they  burn  only  17  hours,  it  means  that  for  every  trim  the  consumer  has  to  pay  a  premium 
of  2.6  cents  for  duty  alone,  meaning  per  1,000  pairs  of  carbons  $26  duty. 

You  will  readily  see  that  this  is  an  exorbitant  tax  on  such  a  great  necessity  to  the 
country  as  light. 

I  inclose  clipping  taken  from  a  newpaper,  showing  the  earnings  of  the  National  Car- 
bon Co.  (Carbon  Trust)  for  the  year  1910,  which  speaks  for  itself.  This  is  certainly  a 
good  showing  for  a  company  which  started  out  in  1897  with  $4,500,000  actual  capital 
and  $5,500,000  watered  stock. 

It  may  interest  you  to  go  over  the  discussion  on  carbons  in  the  Senate  on  May  21, 
1909,  and  I  inclose  herewith  the  Congressional  Record  of  that  date  also.  (See  pp. 
2335-2350.) 

I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  report  to  you  in  detail,  and  should  you  desire  further  infor- 
mation I  am  quite  willing  to  go  to  Washington  and  see  you  at  any  time  regarding  the 
matter. 

I  would  also  be  thankful  to  you  if  you  would  let  me  know  whether  you  are  willing  to 
bring  the  question  up  yourself  or  if  this  has  to  be  done  through  some  other  Member  of 
the  House  or  Senate. 

Trusting  to  be  favored  with  your  kind  reply,  and  thanking  you  in  advance,  I 
remain,  sir, 

Yours,  most  respectfully,  H.  REISINGER. 

BRIEFS  SUBMITTED  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  CARBON  PRODUCTS. 

WELLSVILLE,  N.  Y.,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  notice  by  the  public  press  that  there  will  be  hearing  this  week  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Schedule  B, 
which  relates  to  carbon  products.  We  strongly  advocate  that  No.  95  be  50  or  55  per 


696  tABIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

Cent  instead  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  brushes,  plates,  disks,  and  electrodes  3d 
per  cent  instead  of  20  per  cent.  No.  96  we  feel  that  there  should  be  45  cents  per  100 
feet  instead  of  35  cents;  for  petroleum  coke-lighting  carbons,  75  cents  instead  of 
65  cents  per  hundred  feet,  lighting  carbons  made  chiefly  of  lampblack  or  retort  coke. 

First,  our  reason  for  the  above  request  is  that  material  and  fuel  are  very  much  higher. 

Second,  that  labor  is  a  very  great  item  of  expense;  much  lack  of  appreciation  by 
public  on  the  labor  cost  of  finishing  carbon  products;  close  limits  on  size  requires 
high-class  labor,  which  is  very  much  higher  than  in  Europe.  Our  books  are  open 
at  all  times  for  inspection. 

Very  truly,  yours,  PURE  CARBON  Co., 

R.  A.  DEMPSEY,  President. 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO,  January  6,  1918. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  It  is  our  understanding  that  Schedule  B  of  the  present  tariff  bill  comes 
up  for  consideration  in  the  near  future.  We,  as  domestic  manufacturers,  are  vitally 
interested  in  paragraph  95  and  believe  that  any  reduction  in  duty  would  be  extremely 
detrimental  to  the  domestic  manufacturer  and  domestic  labor  employed  in  the  carbon 
business. 

In  our  opinion  the  present  duty  should  be  increased  to  40  or  45  per  cent  and  in  sup- 
port of  such  statement  submit  the  following  reasons: 

First.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  in  the  carbon  business  that  the  sale  of  carbon  specialties 
in  this  country  of  French,  German,  and  .English  make,  such  as  disks,  brushes,  etc., 
as  covered  by  paragraph  95,  have  increased  greatly  during  the  past  few  years,  in  fact 
very  much  more  rapidly  than  similar  domestic  items.  It  is  tnerefore  very  evident 
that  a  reduction  in  the  present  duty  would  further  handicap  the  domestic  manufacturer. 

Second.  Fifty  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  manufacturing  brushes,  disks,  etc.,  is  a  labor 
cost,  a  large  percentage  of  which  is  of  a  very  highly  skilled  nature.  In  the  majority 
of  cases  the  trade  demands  that  this  class  of  material  be  finished  to  from  one  to  two 
thousandths  of  an  inch,  and,  as  you  are  doubtless  aware,  labor  producing  these  results 
must  naturally  be  experienced  and  demands  very  much  higher  compensation  than 
the  foreign  equivalent.  We  are  sending  you  under  separate  cover  samples  of  brushes 
and  disks,  showing  the  high  finish  and  exactness  spoken  of.  Any  reduction  of  duty 
on  articles  covered  by  paragraph  95  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  dertimental  to  the  best 
interests  of  American  labor. 

In  regard  to  paragraph  96,  while  the  duty  on  this  section,  which  includes  electric- 
light  carbons,  gives  more  protection  than  that  of  products  coming  under  paragraph 
95,  still,  in  our  opinion,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  make  up  the  difference  between  cost  of 
production  at  home  and  abroad,  and  a  slight  increase  in  duty  would  be  only  fair  to 
American  producers. 

Therefore,  as  we  view  it,  both  from  the  standpoint  of  the  domestic  manufacturer 
and  his  employees,  the  present  duties  on  paragraphs  95  and  96  of  schedule  B  should  be 
maintained,  and  if  possible  increased. 

We  sincerely  trust  you  will  give  the  foregoing  expression  of  our  views  favorable 
consideration. 

Very  truly,  yours.  THE  NUNGESSER  CARBON  &  BATTERY  Co., 

H.  G.  ROBBINS,  Treasurer. 


CINCINNATI,  U.  S.  A.,  February  12,  1912. 
To  the  Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  are  manufacturers  of  dry  cell  batteries  and  use  carbon  electrodes  in 
large  quantities. 

We  understand  that  there  is  a  bill  introduced  under  paragraph  95  to  place  a  duty  of 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  coal-gas  retort  carbon. 

This  article  is  a  by-product  in  the  distillation  of  gas  from  coal. 

We  are  firmly  under  the  impression  that  there  is  not  over  15  to  20  per  cent  of  retort 
carbon  (used  in  making  carbon  electrodes  and  carbon  brushes)  manufactured  in  this 
country. 

The  production  aa  above  stated  of  coal-gas  retort  carbon  in  this  country  is  a  very 
limited  one. 

We  are  large  users  of  coal-gas  retort  carbon,  and  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  would  not 
protect  home  industry  to  any  extent,  but  the  duty  would  be  an  absolute  hardship  on 
us  as  well  as  other  manufacturers  of  dry  cell  batteries,  provided  same  was  imposed. 


SCHEDULE  B.  697 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

We  would  respectfully  and  kindly  ask  of  you  to  recommend  to  Congress  that  the 
crude  retort  carbon  (ground  or  unground)  be  placed  on  the  free  list. 

We  know  full  well  that  it  is  not  the  intention  of  Congress  or  the  revenue  department 
to  impose  a  hardship  on  the  American  manufacturer  of  carbon  electrodes,  dry  cell 
batteries,  or  carbon  brushes. 

Thanking  you  in  advance  for  any  attention  you  may  give  this  communication,  we 
beg  to  remain, 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  THE  ROCK  ISLAND  BATTERY  Co., 

Per  M.  S.  ROSENTHAL,  President. 


ST.  Louis,  January  4,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  presume  in  the  revision  of  the  tariff  that  carbon  products,  covered 
by  section  B,  which  we  manufacture,  will  be  considered,  and  we  trust  you  will 
pardon  us  for  intruding  on  your  valuable  time  in  writing  this  letter. 

We  kindly  ask  that  the  duty  now  covered  by  paragraph  95,  on  carbon  brushes, 
electrodes,  plates,  and  disks  be  fixed  at  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  we  also  ask  that 
the  present  duty  covered  by  paragraph  96,  on  electric  light  carbons,  be  maintained. 

You  understand  that  carbon  products  are  principally  manufactured  by  hand  labor, 
and  to  illustrate  this  statement  we  are  sending  you  under  separate  cover  two  brushes, 
which  we  trust  will  reach  you  in  due  time.  Our  worst  competition  now  in  the  carbon 
business  is  from  foreigners,  and  if  the  tariff  is  reduced  the  carbon  industry  in  this  coun- 
try will  be  badly  crippled. 

Carbon  products  are  used  almost  exclusively  by  large  corporations,  and  the  price  ia 
not  a  matter  of  much  concern  to  them,  and  we  believe  the  Government  would  realize 
more  revenue  on  a  higher  tariff  on  carbon  products  than  on  a  lower  one,  as  the  per- 
centage of  carbon  products  now  imported  in  this  couutry  is  in  excess  to  the  quantity 
manufactured. 

We  sincerely  hope  that  you  will  give  the  carbon  industry  due  consideration  and 
will  see  that  it  is  protected,  as  by  so  doing  the  cost  of  living  will  not  be  increased  and 
you  will  protect  an  industry  that  needs  protection  in  this  country. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

AMERICAN  CARBON  &  BATTERY  Co., 
HENRY  MENPE,  President. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  NATIONAL  CARBON  CO.,  CLEVE- 
LAND, OHIO. 

NATIONAL  CARBON  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  January  6,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  Since  the  present  tariff  law  was  enacted  there  have  been  some  important 
developments  in  the  electrical  industry,  among  which  is  the  advent  of  a  long-burning 
naming  arc  lamp,  which  can  be  used  for  either  street  or  interior  lighting.  This  lamp 
requires  a  carbon  or  electrode  which  is  a  combination  of  carbon  and  various  chemicals, 
and  on  account  of  the  radical  change  in  the  nature  of  same  demands  different  treat- 
ment with  regard  to  duty  than  grades  which  are  enumerated  in  the  present  law. 

As  near  as  we  are  able  to  estimate,  the  total  annual  consumption  of  high-grade  car- 
bons is  40,000,000  pieces,  and  we  supply  about  one-half  that  number,  the  balance 
being  imported  from  Germany  and  France.  These  carbons  are  composed  chiefly  of 
lampblack,  and  the  present  rate  of  duty  as  provided  in  paragraph  96  is  65  cents  per 
hundred  feet.  We  believe  our  facilities  and  experience  enable  us  to  produce  high- 
grade  carbons  as  cheaply  as  they  can  be  manufactured  in  this  country,  but  our  opera- 
tions have  not  been  highly  profitable,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  table,  which  covers 
sales  for  the  calendar  years  1910,  1911,  and  10  months  of  1912: 

Net  sales  Jan.  1,  1910,  to  Oct.  31,  1912 $1,  551, 931.  55 

Cost 1, 375, 878.  83 

Profit 176,  052.  72 

Per  cent  of  profit  on  sales,  11.  34. 
Less  annual  depreciation  charges,  not  included  in  cost  of  product 83,  414.  55 

Net  profit 92,  638. 17 

Per  cent  of  net  profit,  5.  97. 


698  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-9&-CARBOtf. 

These  figures  are  taken  from  the  sworn  statement  of  Mr.  F.  D.  Lawrence,  auditor 
and  assistant  treasurer  of  our  company;  the  depreciation  charges  are  5  per  cent  on 
buildings  and  10  per  cent  on  machinery  and  tools.  We  think  it  will  be  conceded  that 
this  is  hardly  a  fair  manufacturing  profit,  especially  in  a  business  which  must  neces- 
sarily follow  the  various  developments  in  the  field  of  arc  lighting,  in  consequence  of 
which  some  of  the  machinery  and  equipment  may  at  any  time  become  obsolete. 

In  1909,  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  tariff  law,  the  average  selling  price  of 
$  by  12  inch  inclosed  arc  carbons,  the  size  which  constitutes  over  one-half  of  the 
total  number  used,  was  about  $23  per  thousand,  and  the  average  price  to-day  is  about 
$18.25  per  thousand.  If  it  were  not  for  economies  we  have  been  able  to  effect  in  the 
manufacturing  processes  this  branch  of  our  business  would  show  a  loss  instead  of  a 
profit  of  5.97  per  cent.  The  increasing  cost  of  labor  and  raw  materials  endangers  even 
this  small  profit,  and  we  hope  the  facts  presented  will  convince  your  honorable  com- 
mittee that  the  present  tariff  of  65  cents  per  hundred  feet  should  not  be  disturbed. 
Under  this  tariff,  the  cost  to  the  consumer  has  decreased,  the  importation  is  larger, 
being  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption  of  high-grade  carbons,  and  the 
revenue  to  the  Government  has  also  increased. 

We  have  frankly  stated  the  actual  results  from  this  branch  of  our  business,  but,  if 
in  the  consideration  of  this  subject,  with  this  information  before  you,  a  reduction  is 
decided  upon,  we  trust  it  will  not  be  more  than  5  cents  per  100  feet,  making  the  duty 
on  electric  light  carbons  made  entirely  from  lampblack  or  retort  carbon  60  cents  per 
100  feet.  The  use  of  electric  light  carbons  made  entirely  from  petroleum  coke  is  con- 
stantly decreasing,  and  importation  has  not  been  large,  which  is  probably  due  to  the 
smaller  supply  of  petroleum  coke  abroad,  and  also  to  the  fact  that  in  Europe  lampblack 
is  not  much  more  expensive  than  petroleum  coke.  In  the  event  that  your  committee 
concludes  to  reduce  the  duty  on  lampblack  carbons  from  65  cents  to  60  cents  per  100 
feet,  a  similar  reduction  of  5  cents  per  100  feet  would  naturally  follow  on  the  petroleum 
coke  carbons,  but,  as  stated  above,  we  sincerely  hope  the  rate  on  either  will  not  be 
changed. 

For  many  years  the  carbons  used  in  arc  lamps  for  street  and  commercial  lighting 
were  manufactured  with  the  object  of  having  them  as  pure  as  possible,  and  such  car- 
bons contain  less  than  one-fourth  of  1  per  cent  of  ash;  i.  e..  material  other  than  carbon. 
The  light  from  carbons  of  this  description  comes  chiefly  from  the  incandescent  points, 
and  not  the  arc  itself.  Within  recent  years  the  so-called  flaming  arc  lamp  appeared, 
and  the  carbons  used  in  them  contain  chemicals  either  in  the  soft  core  in  the  center, 
in  the  shell,  or  on  the  outside  of  it.  With  such  carbons  the  light  comes  chiefly  from 
the  arc,  which  is  much  longer  than  the  arc  produced  by  the  other  carbons,  and  is  of  a 
flaming  nature,  hence  the  name  ''flaming  arc."  This  flaming  arc,  resulting  from  the 
chemicals  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  carbon,  gives  a  light  which  has  four  or  five 
times  the  candlepower  of  that  produced  by  inclosed  arc  lamps  using  the  pure  carbons, 
previously  described.  Many  inventors  were  attracted  to  this  promising  field  with  the 
result  that  numerous  types  of  lamps  are  now  on  the  market  requiring  different  kinds 
and  grades  of  carbon,  some  of  them  quite  complicated  in  their  nature,  and  all  demand- 
ing a  high  grade  of  labor  to  produce,  on  account  of  the  care  necessary  in  the  handling 
of  the  ingredients.  The  percentage  of  chemicals  used  varies  from  5  to  50  per  cent, 
and  by  placing  the  minimum  at  5  per  cent  the  character  of  the  carbons  can  be  defi- 
nitely fixed  to  distinguish  them  from  the  ordinary  grades,  thereby  eliminating  all 
chance  for  error  in  classifying  them  for  duty. 

We  are  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  a  specific  duty  on  regular  lampblack  and  petro- 
leum coke  carbons,  with  100  feet  as  the  unit,  should  be  continued.  They  are  packed 
in  standard  cases,  usually  containing  1,000  pieces  each,  and  this  basis  provides  for  an 
easy  and  positive  administration  by  the  customs  department.  The  prices  of  these 
carbons  are  confined  to  very  narrow  limits,  the  range  being  about  $8.50  to  $11.50  per 
1.000  feet  for  petroleum  coke  carbons  and  $15  to  $25  per  1,000  feet  for  ordinary  lamp- 
black carbons. 

We  do  not  believe,  however,  that  such  a  basis  is  equitable  when  applied  to  flaming 
carbons  on  account  of  the  wide  variation  in  shapes,  sizes,  weights,  and  grades,  ana 
because  of  the  wide  range  of  prices  varying  from  $30  to  $160  per  1,000  feet.  While 
the  possibilities  of  development  are  large,  it  being  claimed  by  some  that  the  flaming 
carbon  will  eventually  supersede  all  other  grades,  it  will  undoubtedly  be  some  time 
before  they  become  standardized  to  the  extent  that  other  grades  are  at  present.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  provide  specific  rates  which  would  properly  meet  these  conditions, 
and  it  is,  therefore,  our  recommendation  that  an  ad  valorem  vasis  be  applied  to  all 
llaming  carbons. 

I  ndi-r  the  pn-.-ont  law  the  duty  on  chemicals  used  in  these  flaming  carbons  is  from 
15  lo  -JO  pc-r  <:>.-nt,  on  lampblack  25  per  cent,  and  on  retort  carbon  20  per  cent.  These 


SCHEDULE  B.  699 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

are  raw  materials  for  the  carbon  industry;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  these  materials 
are  much  cheaper  in  Europe  than  in  the  United  States,  also  that  the  cost  of  labor 
in  the  foreign  factories  is  at  least  70  per  cent  less  than  in  the  United  States,  we  respect- 
fully ask  that  these  flaming  carbons  or  flaming  electrodes  be  assessed  at  an  ad  valorem 
duty  of  not  less  than  45  per  cent.  To  provide  this,  we  suggest  the  insertion  after  the 
duty  on  lampblack  carbons,  in  paragraph  96,  and  preceding  the  duty  on  filter  tubes, 
of  the  following:  "flaming  or  luminous  arc-lamp  carbons  or  arc-lamp  electrodes  having 
flame-producing  chemicals  in  the  core,  on  the  surface  or  mixed  homogeneously  into 
the  body  thereof,  or  manufactured  in  such  manner  that  the  weight  of  any  materials 
other  than  carbon  is  more  than  5  per  cent  of  the  total  weight,  45  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

We  are  confident  that  the  foreign  cost  of  flaming  arc  carbons  plus  cost  of  transporta- 
tion to  this  country  and  a  duty  of  45  per  cent  will  total  an  amount  considerably  less 
than  the  cost  of  manufacture  of  the  same  size  and  grade  in  this  country  under  the  most 
favorable  conditions  and  that  the  duty  requested  will  provide  a  continuance  of  the 
abundant  foreign  competition  which  has  always  existed  in  the  carbon  industry.  The 
ad  valorem  rate  we  have  asked  to  cover  flaming  arc  carbons  will  provide  for  a  duty  in 
proportion  to  their  value  and  will  result  in  a  reduction  of  from  10  to  15  per  cent  in  the 
duty  on  the  styles  of  flaming  arc  carbons  which  have  been  in  use  for  several  years. 

With  regard  to  that  portion  of  paragraph  95  relating  to  carbons  and  reading  as 
follows — 

"carbon,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  electrodes, 
brushes,  plates  and  discs,  all  of  the  foregoing  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of 
carbon,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem" — 

we  understand  that  the  first  clause  is  intended  to  cover  retort  carbon  or  any  other 
manufactured  form  of  carbon  used  as  raw  material,  but  does  not  include  lampblack, 
which  carries  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  as  provided  in  paragraph  45.  Lampblack  and  retort 
carbon  are  important  raw  materials  in  the  manufacture  of  the  carbon  articles  enumer- 
ated in  the  second  clause,  and  labor  constitutes  from  40  to  60  per  cent  of  the  cost,  and  in 
some  of  the  more  highly  finished  articles  it  is  more  than  75  per  cent  of  the  cost.  In 
the  case  of  carbon  brushes  many  of  them  are  imported  with  flexible  copper  cable 
terminals  commonly  called  "pigtails"  attached,  and  these  copper  cables  if  imported 
separately  would  be  assessed  with  a  duty  of  at  least  45  per  cent.  We  understand, 
however,  that  both  carbon  brush  and  copper  connection,  the  latter  usually  being 
worth  more  than  the  brush,  are  admitted  at  30  per  cent  duty. 

The  first  clause  of  paragraph  95  reads: 

"Articles  and  wares  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  earthy  or  mineral  sub- 
stances, not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  whether  susceptible  of  decoration 
or  not,  if  not  decorated  in  any  manner,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem;  if  decorated,  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem." 

While  copper  coating,  tinning,  and  copper  connections  may  possibly  not  properly 
be  termed  decorations,  it  is  certain  that  many  of  these  carbon  articles  are  highly  fin- 
ished products  and  that  labor  forms  a  large  part  of  their  cost.  Developments  in  electric 
motors  and  generators  have  made  the  brush  business  more  complicated,  so  that  instead 
of  the  plain  rectangular  carbon  block  formerly  used  the  demand  is  for  highly  finished 
pieces  with  bevels,  holes  and  slots  and  metal  connections  securely  attached  thereto. 
This  is  also  true  of  other  carbon  articles  used  in  connection  with  electrical  apparatus. 
Most  of  this  work  is  done  by  hand,  and  in  order  to  compete  with  the  products  of  the 
German  and  French  factories  some  readjustment  is  necessary.  We  believe  that  the 
duty  on  these  manufactures  of  carbon  should  be  at  least  as  much  as  provided  in  the 
paragraph  just  quoted  and  respectfully  request  that  the  balance  of  the  paragraph 
be  changed  to  read  as  follows: 

"Unmanufactured  carbon,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  electrodes  for  electric  furnace,  electrolytic  and  battery  purposes, 
brushes,  plates  and  disks,  all  of  the  foregoing  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of 
carbon,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  metal  plated  or  having  metal  attach- 
ments, forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem." 

We  have  suggested  a  slight  change  in  the  wording  of  this  clause  in  order  to  more 
specifically  describe  electrodes  and  definitely  distinguish  them  from  lighting  carbons 
which  are  frequently  referred  to  as  lamp  electrodes. 

In  conclusion  permit  us  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  French  tariff  is 
75  francs  per  hundred  kilos.  This" is  equivalent  to  79  cents  per  hundred  feet  on  \  by 
12  inch  regular  high  grade  electric  light  carbons  and  a  correspondingly  high  ad  valorem 
rate  on  brushes  and  similar  carbon  products.  The  German  tariff  is  30  marks  per 
hundred  kilos  but  according  to  bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor 
entitled  Tariff  Series  No.  7,  the  German  Government  imposes  an  internal-revenue  tax 


700  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  95-96— CARBON. 

on  imports  of  electric-light  carbons  which  is  from  two  to  three  times  the  amount  of  the 
customs  duty  and  in  addition  to  it.  This  is  equivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  about 
123  per  cent  on  \  by  12  solid  carbons  and  189  per  cent  on  the  same  size  of  cored  carbons. 
The  foreign  manufacturers  of  high-grade  carbons  are  located  chiefly  in  Germany  and 
France  and  supply  not  only  their  own  countries  but  all  of  the  balance  of  the  world, 
with  the  exception  of  about  50  per  cent  of  the  consumption  of  high-grade  carbons  in 
the  United  States. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

NATIONAL  CARBON  COMPANY, 
JAMES  PARMELEE,  President. 
J.  S.  CRIDER,  General  Manager. 

The  following  statement  of  net  sales,  cost,  gross  and  net  profit  on  high-grade  carbons 
for  the  period  of  2  years  and  10  months  ending  October  31,  1912,  has  been  by  me 
verified  and  found  correct: 

Net  sales  Jan.  1,  1910,  to  Oct.  31,  1912 $1,551,931.55 

Cost 1,  375,  878.  83 


Profit 176,  052. 72 

Less  annual  depreciation  charges,  not  included  in  cost  of  product 83,  414. 55 

Net  profit 92,  638. 17 


Per  cent  of  profit  on  sales 11. 34 

Per  cent  of  net  profit 5.  97 

F.  D.  LAWRENCE, 
Auditor  and  Assistant  Treasurer. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  4th  day  of  January,  1913. 

[SEAL.]  HOWARD  L.  BARKDULL, 

Notary  Public. 

MEMORANDUM  OF  CHANGES  SUGGESTED  IN  DUTIES  ON  CARBON  PRODUCTS,  PARAGRAPHS 

NO.  95  AND   96. 

95.  Beginning  with  the  word  "carbon"  strike  out  balance  of  paragraph  and  insert 
the  following: 

"Unmanufactured  carbon,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem;  electrodes  for  electric  furnace,  electrolytic  and  battery  purposes, 
brushes,  plates,  and  discs,  all  of  the  foregoing  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of 
carbon,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  metal  plated  or  having  metal  attach- 
ments, forty-five  per  centum  ad  valofem." 

!)(>.  After  the  words  "sixty-five  cents  per  hundred  feet"  and  before  the  words 
"filter  tubes"  insert  the  following: 

"Flaming  or  luminous  arc  lamp  carbons  or  arc  lamp  electrodes  having  flame-produc- 
ing chemicals  in  tho  core,  on  the  surface,  or  mixed  homogeneously  into  the  body 
thereof,  or  manufactured  in  such  manner  that  the  weight  of  any  materials  other  than 
carbon  i.s  more  than  five  per  centum  of  the  total  weight,  forty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem." 


NATIONAL  CARBON  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  January  9,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  \Y.  ['XDKRWOOD, 

Chairman  Wans  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  view  of  the  statements  made  at  the  hearing  on  the  8th  instant  by 
Hugo  Reisinger,  an  importer  in  New  York,  relative  to  the  tariff  on  carbon  products, 
paragraphs  95  and  !)(;.  and  particularly  his  statement  that  the  National  Carbon  Co.  is  a 
trust  and  has  nearly  all  of  the  carbon  business  in  the  United  States,  we  beg  to  state  that 
this  company  is  not  a  trust,  it  is  not  interested  in  any  other  carbon  company,  and  it 
has  not  a  monopoly  of  the  business  in  this  country. 

We  manufacture  a  complete  line  of  carbon  products,  including  electric-light  carbons, 
flaming  arc-  carl  tons,  carbon  brushes,  carbon  electrodes,  carbon  specialties,  wet  and  dry 


SCHEDULE   B.  701 

PARAGRAPHS   95-96— CARBON. 

batteries.  We  have  less  than  50  per  cent  of  the  total  business,  including  petroleum 
coke  carbons,  high-grade  carbons,  flaming  arc  carbons,  carbon  brushes,  electrodes, 
and  batteries.  In  addition  to  the  National  Carbon  Co.,  the  following  are  manufacturers 
of  carbon  products  in  the  United  States: 

American  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  East  St.  Louis,  111.;  Champion  Carbon  Co.,  Love- 
land,  Ohio;  Ntmgesser  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Speer  Carbon  Co.,  St. 
Marys,  Pa.;  Stackpole  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  St.  Marys,  Pa.;  Corliss  Carbon  Co.,  Brad- 
ford, Pa.;  Pure  Carbon  Co.,  Wellsville,  N.  Y.;  Electrode  Co.  of  America,  Niagara  Falls, 
N.  Y.;  International  Acheson  Graphite  Co.,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.;  Holmes  Fibre 
Graphite  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Manhattan  Electrical  Supply  Co.,  New  York,  Jersey 
City,  N.  J.,  and  Ravenna,  Ohio;.Jos.  Dixon  Crucible  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

While  dry  batteries  constitute  about  60  per  cent  of  the  total  annual  sales  of  this 
company,  we  supply  probably  not  more  than  40  per  cent  of  the  dry  batteries  used. 
The  principal  other  manufacturers  of  dry  batteries  are : 

Manhattan  Electrical  Supply  Co.,  New  York;  American  Ever  Ready  Co.,  New 
York;  Stackpole  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  St.  Marys,  Pa.;  Nungesser  Carbon  &  Battery 
Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Rock  Island  Battery  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  French  Battery 
Co.,  Madison,  Wis.;  American  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  East  St.  Louis,  111.;  and  a 
number  of  smaller  manufacturers. 

Reference  was  also  made  to  cost  of  labor  and  raw  materials.  We  pay  our  labor 
more  than  three  tunes  the  wages  paid  for  similar  work  in  France  and  Germany,  and 
lampblack,  an  important  raw  material,  costs  here  almost  twice  as  much  as  in  Europe. 
On  account  of  its  nature  the  freight  rate  is  high  and  cost  of  package  very  expensive 
for  which  reason  we  do  not  import  it  although  duty  is  only  25  per  cent. 

In  addition  to  Mr.  Reisinger,  the  following  are  known  to  us  as  importers  of  carbon 
products: 

L.  Frorup  &  Co.,  New  York;  H.  M.  Hirschberg  Co.,  New  York;  E.  E.  Cary  Co., 
New  York;  W.  J.  Jeandron,  New  York;  Morgan  Crucible  Co.,  New  York;  Kiewert 
&  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

We  know  also  that  carbon  electrodes  are  imported  from  Sweden  and  a  factory  in 
southern  France,  but  we  do  not  know  names  of  agents  here.  Electro  Metals  (Ltd.),  of 
Welland,  Canada,  also  sell  electrodes  in  the  United  States. 

If  Mr.  Reisinger's  business  has  fallen  off  as  he  intimated,  it  must  mean  that  other 
importers  have  increased  their  sales,  which  we  believe  to  be  the  case,  as  the  Govern- 
ment statistics  show  an  increase  in  both  value  and  amount  of  importations.  Since  we 
began  making  high-grade  carbons  the  price  in  this  country  has  greatly  decreased  and 
the  cost  of  high-grade  inclosed-arc  carbons,  the  kind  chiefly  used  for  street  lighting,  ia 
less  than  75  cents  per  lamp  per  year. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

NATIONAL  CARBON  Co., 

J.  S.  CRIDER,  General  Manager. 


NATIONAL  CARBON  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  February  4,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  reviewing  the  testimony  submitted  at  the  tariff  hearings  and  in  the 
preparation  of  a  new  bill,  we  ask  your  consideration  of  the  petition  and  supplemental 
letter  and  statements  submitted  by  us.  We  wrote  on  January  2  that  we  expected 
to  present  a  statement  but  in  some  way  our  name  was  not  put  on  your  schedule, 
which  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  great  amount  of  work  in  connection  with  preparations 
for  the  hearings.  The  writer  was  present  and,  when  it  appeared  that  there  would 
be  no  time  for  appearances  other  than  those  on  the  calendar,  filed  the  statement 
with  Mr.  Roper  late  on  January  9,  the  last  day  for  hearings  under  Schedule  B. 

When  the  Payne  bill  was  being  prepared  and  during  its  consideration  by  Congress 
many  misleading,  and  in  some  cases  manifestly  untruthful,  statements  were  made  by 
importers  of  carbon  products,  in  circular  letters  and  in  the  public  press,  one  of  them 
being  that  if  the  proposed  duty  on  electric-light  carbons  was  adopted  it  would  mean 
an  increase  in  cost  to  electric  lighting  companies  of  $9  per  thousand,  which  in  later 
statements  was  reduced  to  $3.50  per  thousand.  Instead  of  the  large  increase  in  price 
predicted,  the  prices  on  high  grade  electric  lighting  carbons  are  now  about  20  per  cent 
lower  than  they  were  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  law,  and  the  statistics  appar- 
ently show  that  the  importers  have  at  least  50  per  cent  of  the  total  trade  in  the  United 
States  in  high  grade  carbons. 


702  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   95-96— CARBON. 

We  supply  about  50  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  high  grade  electric  light  carbons 
used  in  this  country,  and  even  including  the  low  grade  electric  light  carbons,  the 
use  of  which  is  rapidly  disappearing,  our  proportion  of  the  total  trade  in  all  kinds 
of  carbons  used  for  lighting  is  less  than  60  per  cent  of  the  total  value. 

The  sworn  statement  which  we  submitted  shows  that  our  profit  on  high  grade 
carbons,  from  January  1,  1910  to  October  31,  1912,  was  but  5.97  per  cent,  and  in  view 
of  this  we  earnestly  hope  that  your  committee  will  make  no  reduction  in  the  duty 
on  regular  high  grade  electric  light  carbons.  We  have  suggested  an  ad  valorem  duty 
to  cover  flaming  arc  carbons  on  account  of  their  great  range  in  prices  and  the  uncer- 
tainty as  to  what  the  future  may  bring  forth,  but  the  established  prices  on  regular 
high  grade  carbons  are  within  a  comparatively  close  range,  and  we  therefore  ask 
for  a  continuance  of  a  specific  duty  on  them. 

We  manufacture  a  complete  line  of  carbon  products,  but  our  production  is  probably 
less  than  50  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption  of  these  products.  High  grade  carbons 
for  electric  lighting  comprise  only  about  10  per  cent  of  our  total  sales,  while  dry 
batteries  constitute  about  60  per  cent  of  our  total  business,  and  yet  we  supply  as 
near  as  we  can  estimate  not  more  than  40  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  dry  batteries 
sold.  We  have  very  active  competition  in  all  branches  of  our  business,  the  other 
domestic  manufacturers  being  as  follows:  American  Carbon  &  Battery  Co.,  East  St. 
Louis,  111.;  Champion  Carbon  Co.,  Loveland,  Ohio;  Nungesser  Carbon  &  Battery  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio;  Speer  Carbon  Co.  and  Stackpole  Carbon  Co.,  St.  Marys,  Pa.;  Corliss 
Carbon  Co.,  Bradford,  Pa.;  Pure  Carbon  Co.,  Wellsville,  N.  Y.;  Electrode  Co.  of 
America  and  International  Acheson  Graphite  Co.,  Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.;  Holmes 
Fiber  Graphite  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Manhattan  Electric  Supply  Co.,  New  York, 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  and  Ravenna,  Ohio;  Jos.  Dixon  Crucible  Co.,  Jersey  City,  N.  J. 

In  addition  to  these  there  are  a  number  of  companies  which  make  dry  batteries 
only  and  it  will  therefore  be  apparent  to  you,  despite  statements  of  importers  to  the 
contrary,  that  we  do  not  have  a  monopoly  of  any  branch  of  the  carbon  business  in 
this  country.  This  company  is  not  a  trust  and  is  not  interested  in  any  other  carbon 
company. 

Yours,  respectfully,  NATIONAL  CARBON  Co., 

J.  S.  CRIDER,  General  Manager. 

BRIEF  OF  CORLISS  CARBON  CO.,  OF  BRADFORD,  PA. 

[Carbon  (Pars.  95  and  96.     Tariff  of  1909).] 

CORLISS  CARBON  Co., 
Bradford,  Pa.,  January  9,  1913. 

As  the  representative  of  one  of  the  independent  carbon  manufacturers,  I  beg  to  state 
that  the  company  I  represent,  namely,  the  Corliss  Carbon  Co.,  was  organized  and  incor- 
porated about  three  years  ago  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  That  the 
present  existing  tariff  laws  have  some  bearing  upon  the  existence  of  our  enterprise 
can  not  be  doubted.  Our  capitalization  is  $200,000,  fully  paid  in.  The  stockholders 
of  the  company  are  mostly  business  men  of  Bradford,  Pa.,  and  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  These 
gentlemen  furnished  the  capital  for  this  industry  with  the  natural  expectation  of  at 
least  receiving  a  fair  remuneration  on  their  investment,  but  as  yet  said  remuneration 
has  not  been  forthcoming.  During  the  period  of  the  operation  of  this  plant,  to  wit, 
two  years,  money  has  been  actually  lost.  The  perfecting  and  manufacturing  of  high- 
grade  carbon  product  is  exceeding  slow,  tedious,  and  expensive,  and  with  the  con- 
tinued demand  and  the  rapid  development  in  the  electrical  world  for  higher  efficiency 
in  carbon  brushes  the  cost  of  operating  the  plant  is  growing  more  expensive.  Par- 
ticularly is  the  work  of  experimenting  of  necessity  very  costly. 

In  the  manufacture  of  carbon  products  we  must  employ  workmen  who  are  excep- 
tionally skilled,  their  wages  ranging  from  $2  to  $5  per  day,  and  as  a  result  our  pay  roll 
constitutes  the  largest  item  of  expense.  Besides  these  skilled  mechanics,  we  employ 
electrical  engineers,  as  well  as  expert  electrical  chemists. 

Competition  at  the  present  time  is  very  keen  owing  to  the  existence  of  a  number  of 
large  manufacturers  in  this  country.  Under  the  present  tariff  the  sale  of  foreign  brushes 
has  increased  amazingly,  and  we  are  very  apprehensive  of  the  result  from  any  curtail- 
ment of  protection.  In  fact,  we  feel  that  the  circumstances  warrant  an  increase  of  tariff. 
Our  company  is  engaged  exclusively  in  carbon  brush  manufacture,  and  whether  we 
will  eventually  expand  to  include  other  carbon  materials — for  example,  electric-light 
carbons,  battery  carbons,  etc. — will  depend  largely  upon  what  measure  of  protection 
we  enjoy. 


SCHEDULE   B.  703 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  personnel  of  our  stockholders  comprise  practically  the  principal  stockholders 
in  an  independent  oil  refinery  located  in  the  city  of  Bradford,  Pa.  Petroleum  coke 
is  one  of  its  by-products  which  constitutes  the  base  for  raw  material  in  the  carbon 
industry.  It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  three  years  ago  this  product  was  a  drug  upon 
the  market  and  hard  to  dispose  of,  which,  together  with  the  fact  that  fuel  oil,  another 
by-product  of  the  refinery  was  also  a  drug  on  the  market,  the  market  price  of  which 
was  2  cents  per  gallon  at  that  time.  Undoubtedly  this  condition  was  the  principal 
reason  for  this  company  engaging  in  the  carbon  industry. 

I  trust  this  committee  will  consider  all  the  foregoing  facts  carefully  and  before  mak- 
ing any  recommendations  procure  further  facts  pertaining  to  this  industry. 

CORLISS  CARBON  Co., 
OTTO  KOCH,  President. 
PARAGRAPH  97. 

Plain  green  or  colored,  molded  or  pressed,  and  flint,  lime,  or  lead  glass 
bottles,  vials,  jars,  and. covered  or  uncovered  demijohns,  and  carboys,  any  of 
the  foregoing,  filled  or  unfilled,  not  otherwise  specially  provided  for  in  this 
section,  and  whether  their  contents  be  dutiable  or  free  (except  such  as  contain 
merchandise  subject  to  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty,  or  to  a  rate  of  duty  based 
in  whole  or  in  part  upon  the  value  thereof  which  shall  be  dutiable  at  the  rate 
applicable  to  their  contents),  shall  pay  duty  as  follows :  If  holding  more  than 
one  pint,  one  cent  per  pound;  if  holding  not  more  than  one  pint  and  not  less 
than  one-fourth  of  a  pint,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound;  if  holding  less 
than  one-fourth  of  a  pint,  fifty  cents  per  gross:  Provided,  That  none  of  the 
above  articles  shall  pay  a  less  rate  of  duty  than  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem: 
Provided  further,  That  the  terms  bottles,  vials,  jars,  demijohns,  and  carboys, 
as  used  herein,  shall  be  restricted  to  such  articles  when  suitable  for  use  as 
and  of  the  character  ordinarily  employed  as  containers  for  the  holding  or  trans- 
portation of  merchandise,  and  not  as  appliances  or  implements  in  chemical 
or  other  operations. 

For  glass  bottles,  see  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  481. 

PARAGRAPH  98. 

Glass  bottles,  decanters,  and  all  articles  of  every  description  composed 
wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  glass,  ornamented  or  decorated  in  any  manner,  or 
cut,  engraved,  painted,  decorated,  ornamented,  colored,  stained,  silvered, 
gilded,  etched,  sand  blasted,  frosted,  or  printed  in  any  manner,  or  ground 
(except  such  grinding  as  is  necessary  for  fitting  stoppers  or  for  purposes  other 
than  ornamentation),  and  all  articles  of  every  description,  including  bottles 
and  bottle  glassware,  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  glass  blown  either 
in  a  mold  or  otherwise ;  all  of  the  foregoing,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this 
section,  filled  or  unfilled,  and  whether  their  contents  be  dutiable  or  free, 
sixty  per  centum  ad  valorem:  Provided,  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  act 
bottles  with  cut  glass  stoppers  shall,  with  the  stoppers,  be  deemed  entireties. 

GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

STATEMENT  OF  HARRY  JENKINS,  ALTON,  ILL. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  wish  to  talk  about,  Mr.  Jenkins? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  The  bottle  schedule. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right;  proceed. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  We  ask  that  this  committee  do  not  reduce  the  tariff 
on  bottles  any  lower  than  it  is.  We  have  always  had  the  bottle  tariff 
and  been  protected  from  the  lower-paid  workmen  of  Europe,  whose 
bottles  are  shipped  in  here  in  greater  quantities  than  one  would 
imagine.  It  has  been  helpful  to  us  in  the  years  gone  by,  and  we 
believe  we  have  been  able  to  maintain  a  living  wage  by  that  tariff 
being  on  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  production  of  bottles  in  this  country? 

Air.  JENKINS.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that,  sir.  I  do  not  know.  I 
have  not  the  least  idea  in  the  world.  I  speak  from  a  workman's 


704  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

standpoint.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  manufacturing  end  of 
it.  I  am  a  workman,  a  member  of  the  union,  and  only  know  just 
exactly  what  I  see  in  traveling  around,  and  could  not  tell  you  what 
the  production  of  bottles  is. 

But  we  do  believe — we  have  perhaps  had  it  drilled  into  us  in  years 
gone  by,  that  as  a  result  of  a  reduction  of  tariff  on  bottles,  upon  the 
goods  of  foreign  workmen,  we  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  there  was,  in  the 
years  gone  by,  some  10  years  ago,  perhaps,  on  the  Pacific  slope, 
oottles  sent  hi  there  as  ballast  and  used  in  the  wine  and  water  trade. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  of  any  bottles  coming  in  on  the 
eastern  seaboard  at  all  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  could  not  say  that  I  do  know  anything  about 
that;  no,  sir.  I  could  not  say  that.  But  there  are  some  that  come 
in  that  way,  there  is  no  doubt,  because  we  hear  of  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  Of  course,  you  are  an  American? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Born  here  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  you  acquainted  with  any  of  your  associates  who  are 
working  in  this  industry  who  are  foreigners  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Who  have  worked  on  both  sides  of  the  water? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  your  judgment  that  they  are  any  more  efficient 
here,  can  turn  out  any  more  work,  than  they  would  on  the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  According  to  the  conditions,  I  think  they  turn  out 
more  work  here  than  they  do  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  those  bottles  blown  by  machinery  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  By  both. 

Mr.  HILL.  Both'? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  Which  method  produces  the  larger  profits,  machinery 
or — 

Mr.  JENKINS  (interposing.)  I  presume  the  machinery. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  the  foreign  workman  more  or  less  efficient  on  the 
machinery  or  on  the  individual  power  than  the  American  workman? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  There  is  hardly  a  comparison.  They  work  in  a  dif- 
ferent way  here.  There  is  a  different  way  they  have  of  working,  and 
when  they  first  come  to  this  country  a  number  of  them  work  the  same 
way  as  they  did  in  Europe,  but  it  has  been  gradually  discontinued. 
That  is  what  is  known  as  '''seamless  bottles." 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Then  the  disparity  in  wages  is  not  compensated 
for,  but  the  foreigner  himself  working  here,  you  say,  is  more  efficient 
than  ho  is  on  the  other  side,  to  some  extent? 

Mr.  JEXKIXS.  lie  makes  hotter  wages  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the 
list  is  higher  on  this  side. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  That  is  not  the  question.  You  misunderstand 
my  question.  I  do  not  care  for  theories.  I  want  to  know  the  facts. 

Mr.  JEXKIXS.  J  am  giving  you  the  facts. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  It  is  piecework,  is  it? 

Mr.  JEXKIXS.   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIIACKI.EFORD.  Is  it  piecework  on  the  other  side? 


SCHEDULE   B.  705 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Then  the  difference  in  the  question  of  efficiency 
does  not  come  in  at  all,  does  it  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  How  does  it  come  in,  if  it  is  piecework  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  If  he  is  not  a  competent  workman  he  does  not  make 
a  good  day's  wage,  or  does  not  malte  first-class  ware. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  If  his  piece  price  over  there  and  piece  price  here 
were  maintained  just  the  same,  regardless  of  how  much  he  does,  it 
would  not  make  any  difference? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Perhaps  so. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Consequently  it  is  not  a  question  of  efficiency 
that  counts.  That  does  not  count  at  all. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that,  but  the  efficiency — I  told 
you  that  he  worked  the  same  way  hi  this  country  after  he  landed 
here  until  he  became  acquainted  with  the  American  way  of  working, 
that  he  worked  the  other  way. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  The  point  I  w^ant  to  get  at  is  the  cost  of  the 
article,  whether  it  is  lowered  by  reason  of  superior  efficiency.  Where 
does  that  question  exist,  if  it  is  a  question  of  piecework?  If  it  was 
by  day's  labor  and  a  man  could  do  twice  as  much,  the  American 
manufacturer  could  afford  to  pay  twice  as  much,  but  if  he  pays  by 
piecework  there  can  be  no  question  of  efficiency  in  this  trade  any 
more  than  in  any  other,  so  far  as  the  unit  cost  of  the  article  is  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Well,  the  protection — according  to  what  we  under- 
stand from  our  point  of  view,  they  do  not  make  much  more  than  two- 
thirds  as  much  ware  on  that  side  of  the  water  as  we  do. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  And  do  not  get  so  much  product  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No;  not  by  two  and  one-half  times  as  much. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  find  out.  In  a  ques- 
tion of  piecework  the  question  of  efficiency  does  not  enter  in  at  all. 

Do  you  know  what  prices  are  paid  for  labor  in  foreign  countries  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No;  I  do  not  know  much  about  that. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Have  you  any  knowledge  on  the  subject  as  to 
what  the  foreign  wages  are  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  They  get  about  $2  I  think,  something  like  that; 
something  like  $1.25  to  $2.50  a  day. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  How  do  you  get  your  information? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  From  the  workmen  themselves  that  told  me  about 
it;  that  they  got  so  many  marks. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  speak  for  the  workmen,  do  you? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Your  plant  is  at  Alton,  111.  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  work  there;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  are  employed  in  that  plant? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  use  machinery  largely  there  in  making  bottles, 
do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  blowers  were  employed  there  before  they 
introduced  machinery  ? 

7S'«tol)° — VOL  1 — 13— i5 


706  TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  About  520;  perhaps  530. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  And  when  did  they  introduce  machinery  to  make 
bottles?  • 

Mr.  JENKINS.  How  did  they  come  to  introduce  it  ? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  When;  about  how  many  years  ago? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  think  it  has  been  about  two  years  ago,  perhaps,  or 
three. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  are  now  installing  a  couple  or  more  large 
machines,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No;  I  think  they  are  done. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  have  just  finished  installing  two  new  ones  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Perhaps;  but  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  machines  have  they  in  there  with  which 
to  blow  bottles  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Eighteen. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  blowers  are  employed  there  now? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  About  315. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  About  half  as  many  as  you  had  before  the  machines 
were  put  in  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  A  little  more  than  half. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  they  get  as  much  wages  now  as  they  did  before 
the  machines  were  put  in  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No;  they  do  not. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then  the  competition  of  the  machines  brought  down 
wages  ?  • 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  they  employ  children  there? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  No;  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Has  there  not  been  a  scandal  there  two  or  three 
times  recently,  and  investigations  by  the  State. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  What  would  you  call  recent? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Within  the  last  two  or  three  years.  Have  not  chil- 
dren been  smuggled  around  the  place  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  do  not  know  about  that. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Did  they  not  have  a  system  of  picketing  around  the 
front  of  the  factory  there  by  which  warnings  were  sent  inside,  and 
when  the  State  officials  approached  the  children  were  all  hidden  in 
the  warehouse? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  You  are  asking  me  something  I  do  not  know  any- 
thing about.  I  have  never  heard  that  story  before.  It  may  possi- 
bly be  true.  That  would  devolve  on  the  company  itself. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  know  it  does  not  devolve  on  you;  but  I  am  discussing 
it  in  connection  with  this  matter. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that;  but  I  do  know 
that  they  have  had  young  and  middle  aged  men,  and  perhaps  old  men, 
employed  there  perhaps  8  or  10  years  doing  what  was  formerly  done 
by  boys  before  the  passage  of  the  child-labor  law. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  mean  in  the  basket  shops, where  they  do  this  wicker- 
work.  Is  that  not  done  by  children  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  believe  it  is  done  by  girls. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Little  girls,  too? 


SCHEDULE   B.  707 

PARAGRAPHS  9T-9&— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  JENKINS.  That  I  could  not  say.  I  do  not  see  that  work  once  in 
a  year  or  perhaps  two  years.  I  am  only  in  the  blowing  department, 
where  they  blow  the  bottles. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  That  is  the  largest  bottle  factory  in  the  country  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  believe  so;  yes,  sir. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  COMMITTEE  REPRESENTING  NATIONAL 
VIAL  &  BOTTLE  MANUFACTURERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means:  We,  a  committee 
from  the  National  Vial  &  Bottle  Association,  an  organization  whose  purpose  is  the  pro- 
tection of  its  members  from  improper  railroad  rates  and  classification  rulings;  the  inves- 
tigation of  all  legislation  which  affects  the  bottle  industry;  the  investigation  of  all 
tariff  measures;  the  making  of  a  uniform  wage  scale  once  each  year  with  the  Glass 
Bottle  Blowers'  Association;  also  the  recognized  organization  with  authority  to  treat 
with  the  union  of  glass  bottle  blowers  and  make  working  rules,  etc.,  which  govern 
the  entire  trade  in  union  plants,  do  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the 
present  tariff  on  glass  bottles,  Schedule  B,  paragraphs  No.  97  and  No.  98,  for  the 
following  reasons:  Under  the  present  tariff  the  price  of  bottles  to  the  consumer  is 
the  lowest  in  the  history  of  the  industry.  Almost  without  exception,  every  line  of 
ware  made  in  bottle  plants  has  been  reduced  in  price  until  now  the  prices  to  the  con- 
sumer are  the  lowest  ever  known.  This  is  due  to  the  sharp  competition  among  bottle 
manufacturers,  to  the  improved  and  modern  methods  introduced  into  the  factories 
during  the  last  few  years,  and  to  the  increase  of  machine-made  bottles. 

Again,  the  present  profits  to  the  manufacturer  in  the  bottle  business  are  the  smallest 
by  comparison  over  a  long  period,  the  competition  being  particularly  keen  between 
the  hand-blown  factories. 

Again,  the  matter  of  costs  in  the  bottle  business  has  been  brought  to  the  lowest 
point  heretofore  known.  Manufacturers  have  spent  largely  of  time  and  money  to 
reduce  costs,  and  in  consequence  reduced  the  price  of  the  finished  product.  If  a 
tariff  reduction  was  made  to  a  point  that  will  admit  foreign  made  bottles,  the  manufac- 
turing costs  being  to  the  lowest  point  they  can  be  brought,  it  would  mean  inevitably 
and  absolutely  a  reduction  in  our  labor  costs,  because  this  is  the  only  feature  of  our 
manufacturing  costs  which  can  be  reduced.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  mate- 
rial costs  in  this  industry  are  comparatively  small,  and  that  labor  is  the  principal 
and  important  item  in  the  cost  of  production. 

The  figures  for  the  following  comparison  are  taken  from  the  Government  Consular 
Reports,  from  the  reports  of  labor  organizations,  and  from  the  reports  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Commerce  and  Labor.  In  England  the  bottle  blower  earns  from  $1.50  to 
$2.50  per  day.  An  average  for  a  large  number  of  blowers,  covering  several  different 
periods,  was  $1.61  per  day.  In  Germany  the  average  is  almost  identical.  In  the 
United  States  the  bottle  blower  receives  from  $3.50  to  $10  per  day,  the  average  for 
several  large  and  representative  plants  being  over  $6  per  day.  In  fact,  the  average 
over  the  whole  United  States,  covering  all  blowers,  is  given  by  the  officials  of  the 
union  as  $4.60  per  day  for  the  entire  fiscal  year,  June  30,  1911,  to  June  30,  1912. 

If  you  will  look  at  the  figures,  you  will  see  quite  a  large  importation  of  empty  and 
filled  bottles;  and  would  also  call  attention  to  the  larger  number  of  filled  bottles 
which  come  in  duty  free  because  the  contents  are  taxed.  These  bottles  become,  soon 
as  they  are  empty,  a  menace  to  the  manufacturer  and  workman  alike,  as  they  are  sold 
at  ridiculously  low  prices  as  second-hand  bottles.  The  Government  looses  a  consid- 
erable sum  in  reA-emie.  and  the  American  manufacturer  and  workman  loses  the 
opportunity  to  make  many  of  these  bottles. 

It  is  highly  possible  that  if  thorough  and  reliable  information  could  be  obtained  as  to 
foreign  labor  costs,  that  a  slight  reduction  could  be  made  in  Schedule  B  as  applied  to 
bottles,  but  we  most  respectfully  ask  that  you  do  not  change  the  tariff  rates  on  bottles 
in  any  manner,  that  will  not  give  ample  protection  to  our  manufacturers,  and  to  our 
workmen,  against  the  cheap  labor  in  European  markets,  bearing  in  mind  at  all  times 
that  we  pay"both  to  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  in  the  bottle  industry  in  the  United 
States,  approximately  two  and  one-half  times  the  rate  of  wages  paid  to  the  same  class 
•  if  laborers  in  foreign  markets. 

Our  committee  "represents  directly  38  of  the  largest  bottle  factories  u  the  United 
States,  and  indirectly  75  additional  factories  all  over  the  glass-producing  States,  em- 
ploying over  35.000  workmen,  of  which  number  about  11,000  are  skilled  men,  and  the 
output  in  the  last  year  had  a  value  of  approximately  $48.000.000.  You  will  see  that  we 
represent  one  of  the  important  American  industries  and  it  is  our  earnest  request  that 


708  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

in  forming  this  new  tariff  measure  that  you  will  make  Schedule  B  as  applied  to  glass 
bottles  so  that  it  will  afford  us  ample  protection  against  all  foreign  competition,  and 
afford  our  workmen  an  opportunity  to  earn  decent  wages. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

GEORGE  W.  YOST, 
Bellaire  Bottle  Co.,  Bellaire,  Ohio; 

JOHN  F.  PERRY, 
Cumberland  Glass  Mfg.  Co.,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.; 

J.  L.  CLYDE, 
The  Olean  Glass  Co.,  Olean,  N.  Y.; 

Committee. 

Companies  represented:  Illinois  Glass  Co.,  Alton,  111.;  Whitall-Tatum  Co.,  Mill- 
ville,  N.  J.;  Poughkeepsie  Glass  Co.,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.;  Fidelity  Glass  Co.,  Taren- 
tum,  Pa.;  Burney-Bond  Bottle  Co.,  Bradford.  Pa.;  J.  F.  &  A.  Hamilton,  Pittsburgh, 
Pa.;  Kerns-Gorsuch  Bottle  Co.,  Zanesville,  Ohio.;  American  Bottle  Co.,  Streator,  111.; 
Swindell  Bros,  and  Carr-Lowry  Glass  Co., Baltimore,  Md.;  Old  Dominion  Glass  Co., 
Alexandria,  Va.;  Turner  Bros.  Co.  and  Root  Glass  Co.,  Terre  Haute,  Ind.;  Marion 
Flint  Glass  Co.,  Marion,  Ind.;  The  Williamstown  Glass  Co.,  Williamstown,  N.  J.; 
Gaynor  Glass  Works,  Salem,  N.  J.;  A.  Busch  Glass  Mfg.  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  The 
North  Wheeling  Glass  Co.,  Wheeling,  W.  Va.;  N.  Baltimore  Bottle  Glass  Co.,  Terre 
Haute,  Ind.;  The  Diamond  Glass  Co.,  Royersford,  Pa.;  The  Franzen  Glass  Co.,  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.;  The  Illinois  Pacific  Glass  Co.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.;  Coshocton  Glass 
Co.,  Coshocton,  Ohio.;  The  Rhodes  Glass  &  Bottle  Co.,  Massilon,  Ohio.;  The  Star 
Glass  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  The  Morris  Glass  Co.,  Point  Marion,  Pa.;  F.  E.  Reed 
Glass  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y.;  Chattanooga  Glass  &  Bottle  Co.,  Chattanooga,  Tenn.; 
H.  C.  Fox  &  Sons,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Binghamton  Glass  Co.,  Binghamton,  N.  Y.; 
O'Bear-Nester  Glass  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Sheldon-Foster  Glass  Co.,  Chicago  Heights, 
111.;  Maryland  Glass  Corporation,  Baltimore,  Md. 

BRIEF  OF  THE   CONSOLIDATED  LATJSITZ  GLASSWORKS  CORPO- 
RATION, NEW  YORK,  N.  Y 

VEREINIGTE  LAUSITZER  GLASWERKE  A.-G., 

(CONSOLIDATED    LAUSITZ   GLASSWORKS    CORPORATION, 

New  York,  February  3,  1913. 
Hon.  O.  UNDERWOOD. 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR:  As  manufacturers  and  importers  of  German  glassware,  we  desire  to  refer  to  the 
existing  duty  on  glass  bottles  of  all  kinds,  being  used  as  containers  on  which  under 
the  present  tariff,  according  to  paragraph  97,  a  duty  of  not  less  than  40  per  cent  ad 
valorem  is  assessed . 

We  believe  that  this  rate  of  duty  is  not  only  high  but  also  unjust,  inasmuch  as  on 
one  hand  it  prohibits  the  importation  of  bottles  from  Germany  to  compete  with  the 
American-made  bottle,  thereby  eliminating  the  possibility  of  obtaining  revenues;  on 
the  other  hand  this  high  rate  of  duty  does  not  protect  the  skilled  glass  blower,  as  in 
this  country  the  majority  of  bottles  are  being  made  by  automatic  machines,  the  appli- 
ance of  which  has  thrown  out  a  large  number  of  skilled  glass  blowers.  These  machines 
are  run  and  operated  by  two  or  three  boys  or  helpers. 

The  assessed  duty,  therefore,  does  not  offer  any  protection  or  advantage  to  the  skilled 
glass  blower,  as  is  claimed,  but  simply  helps  the  manufacturers  to  keep  out  all  foreign 
competition,  and  in  spite  of  the  low  producing  cost  of  the  machine-made  bottles  over 
the  European  lung-blown  bottles,  he  obtains  an  opportunity  to  control  prices  at  will. 

I'p  to  about  a  year  ago.  only  the  larger  sixes  of  bottles  were  made  on  the  so-called 
''Owens  bottle  machine;"  however,  this  machine  has  been  considerably  improved 
recently  and  bottles  of  as  small  a  size  as  1  ounce  can  now  be  made  on  this  machine. 
The  capacity  of  this  machine  is  figured  from  40  to  00  bottles  per  minute,  according  to 
size  of  bottle. 

The  patentee  has  formed  a  company  not  only  to  place  such  machines  in  glass  facto- 
ries, but  they  have  built  a  glass  factory  and  will  manufacture  glass  bottles  themselves. 

They  intend  to  control  prices  on  the  manufactured  article  by  selling  the  machine  to 
outside  factories  not  outright,  but  Dimply  by  leasing  same. 

Furthermore,  to  coin  ml  the  situation  even  closer,  the  outside  manufacturers  will  be 
allmved  to  u-e  the  leased  machine  only  for  certain  individual  type  bottles,  whereas 
other  outside  factorie>  a  train  will  lie  allowed  to  work  a  few  other  special  shape  of 
bottles. 


SCHEDULE  B.  709 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Besides  this  limitation  as  to  the  variety  of  patterns,  each  factory  is  held  down  to 
manufacture  only  up  to  a  certain  amount,  to  limit  production. 

You  will  therefore  readily  see  that  such  conditions  tend  in  a  very  high  degree  to 
monopolize  the  market  on  a  product  of  necessity  in  numerous  trades. 

The  present  rate  of  duty,  in  view  of  the  machine  production  being  detrimental  to 
the  skilled  glass  blowers  and  not  offering  any  revenue  is  entirely  inconsistent,  and  we 
would  therefore  respectfully  suggest  that  the  rate  on  bottles  for  use  as  containers  ehou  K I 
be  considerably  reduced  to  enable  the  foreign  product  to  get  into  this  market  and  com- 
pete with  the  American  product,  which  shows  a  monopolizing  tendency. 

The  producing  cost  of  machine-made  bottles  compared  even  with  the  lowest  wages 
paid  in  Germany  is  still  from  20  per  cent  to  40  per  cent  lower,  and  if  such  bottles  can  not 
be  put  on  the  free  list,  the  rate  of  duty,  in  our  opinion,  should  be  lowered  to  10  per  cent. 

At  this  rate,  there  is  a  possibility  to  place  the  imported  article  in  this  market  and 
offer  the  consumer  a  product  at  competitive  prices. 

The  cut  in  duty  wfll  not  be  detrimental  to  the  wage-earners  but  simply  serve  to  cut 
down  the  large  profits  of  the  American  manufacturers,  who,  under  the  present  tariff, 
have  held  great  advantages. 

We  respectfully  offer  the  foregoing  for  your  earnest  consideration  and  action. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

VEREINIGTE  LAUSITZER  GLASWERKE,  A.  G. 
(CONSOLIDATED  LAUSITZ  GLASSWORKS,  CORP'N), 
J.  E.  BIEBER,  Manager,  New  York  Branch. 

PROTEST  AGAINST  REDUCTION  OF  DUTY  ON  GLASSWARE. 

GLASS  BOTTLE  BLOWERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  CANADA. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  Jan.  9,  1913. 
The  SECRETARY  OF  THE  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Under  the  present  tariff  law  the  glass-bottle  blowers  of  this  country  are  protected 
against  the  products  of  the  lower-paid  workmen  of  Europe,  and  which  is  necessary  in 
order  to  create  the  opportunity  or  basis  upon  which  we  have  been  enabled  to  maintian 
a  living  wage. 

There  are  in  this  country  about  11,000  skilled  glass-bottle  blowers,  whose  average 
wage  per  day  is  not  in  excess  of  $4.60  as  against  the  lower  wage  of  the  foreign  blower. 
The  entire  membership  of  our  association  favors  a  continuation  of  the  present  tariff, 
and  instructed  us  to  make  this  known  to  you. 

Dependent  upon  the  glass-bottle  industry  are  about  35,000  unskilled  workmen  and 
their  families,  who  would  be  affected  by  the  importation  of  bottles  into  this  country 
in  competition  with  the  American  bottle  blower. 

The  necessity  for  maintaining  the  present  tariff  is  as  great  now  as  at  any  former  time, 
for  work  is  not  as  plentiful  as  it  once  was,  and  the  effort  to  maintain  wages  is  harder 
now  than  heretofore,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  improved  machinery  has  come 
into  our  trade.  This  in  connection  with  a  lower  tariff  rate  would  force  the  bottle 
blowers'  wages  down  to  such  a  low  rate  that  they  would  hardly  make  a  living  wage. 

A  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  glass  bottles  is  always  followed  by  a  strong  demand  from 
the  manufacturers  for  a  reduction  of  wages  of  the  workmen,  basing  their  demand  on 
the  importation  of  bottles  from  foreign  countries  filled  and  unfilled.  We  would  urge 
that  where  bottles  are  sent  in  filled  and  no  duty  is  imposed,  except  on  the  contents 
therein,  that  the  same  rate  of  duty  be  imposed  as  though  they  were  empty  or  separate. 
Much  of  the  ware  imported  under  this  guise  is  again  used  in  other  channels.  For 
instance,  claret  wines  imported  into  San  Francisco  filled  with  Apollinaris  water  are 
afterwards  used  for  claret  wine. 

If  these  bottles  were  made  in  this  country  and  not  imported  it  would  furnish  employ- 
ment for  several  thousand  more  skilled  workmen  and  a  proportionately  large  number 
of  unskilled  workmen. 

Therefore,  in  view  of  the  facts  as  above  stated,  we  would  urgently  request  that  there 
be  no  reduction  from  the  present  rate  of  tariff  on  foreign-made  glass  bottles. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

D.  A.  HAYES, 
President  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association. 

Attest: 

[SEAL.]  WILLIAM  LAUNER,  Secretary. 

Executive  board:  John  A.  Voll  (vice  president),  J.  E.  Daily,  James  Maloney,  E.  E. 
Tharp,  J.  L.  Lanoux,  F.  M.  Edwards,  Arthur  Muhleman,  E.  E.  Evans,  Harry  Jenkina 
(secretary),  executive  board. 


710  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD,  M.  C., 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  is  now  considering  a  revision  of  the  tariff  laws  on  imported  glass 
wares,  and  has  the  subject  under  consideration  known  as  paragraph  98,  Schedule  B. 
We  most  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  reduced  tariff  means  reduced 
wages  to  our  members  and  other  sacrifices,  such  as  were  experienced  under  the  Wilson 
tariff  law.  We  therefore  beseech  you  and  your  committee  to  not  make  any  reduc- 
tion on  the  present  tariff  rates  on  imported  glass  wares,  as  the  present  tariff  rates  do 
not  afford  sufficient  protection  to  the  American  workman,  as  considerable  glassware 
is  now  being  imported,  notwithstanding  the  extraordinary  keen  competition  pre- 
vailing in  the  glass  markets  of  our  country. 

There  is  no  monopoly  on  glass  wares  in  the  American  trade,  and  no  organization 
among  the  flint-glass  manufacturers.  All  are  free  to  sell  as  they  please,  and  prices 
are  very  low.  There  will  be  no  relief  afforded  to  the  citizens  of  our  country  if  the 
tariff  rates  are  reduced,  as  it  will  only  intensify  the  present  deplorable  state  or  affairs. 

Therefore  we  most  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  rates, 
and  we  trust  you  will  act  favorably  on  our  appeal. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

[SEAL.]  JOHN  A.  ROSENBERGER, 

Secretary  L.  U.  No.  S. 

ALEXANDRIA,  IND. 


(A  communication  identical  with  the  above  and  signed  by  the  officers  and  61 
members  of  Local  No.  127  of  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers,  Lancaster,  Ohio,  was 
also  filed.) 

STATEMENT   OF  T.  W.  HOWE,  IN   BEHALF  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
FLINT  GLASS  WORKERS'  UNION. 

Mr.  HOWE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  American 
Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  of  North  America.  I  am  here  represent- 
ing the  workers.  I  never  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  Mr.  Carey,  and 
I  never  met  Mr.  Dorflinger  until  yesterday.  I  am  here  representing 
the  workers  in  this  industry. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  paragraph  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  HOWE.  Paragraph  98. 

I  am  here  to  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  present  tariff 
rates  on  all  plain  glasswares.  I  represent  the  men  that  make  the 
blanks,  the  men  that  do  the  cutting,  and  the  men  that  do  the  engrav- 
ing; I  represent  the  workmen  that  make  everything  in  the  illuminat- 
ing line,  from  the  incandescent  electric  bulb  up  to  all  the  shades  and 
globes;  I  represent  the  men  who  make  everything  in  the  pressed  line, 
common  ordinary  tableware;  in  fact,  everything  that  is  made  in  the 
general  glass  trade  in  the  United  States,  except  window  glass. 

We  are  opposed  to  any  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  rates,  because 
we  have  boon  obliged  to  make  many,  many  sacrifices  to  meet  the  evil 
of  foreign  competition.  Our  organization  has  spent  an  enormous 
amount  of  money  to  investigate  this  situation.  Ten  years  ago,  in  the 
interest  of  our  organization,  I  toured  France,  Belgium,  Germany, 
Austria,  Bohemia,  Italy,  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  Last  year  I  attended 
the  International  Congress  of  Glassmen  in  Berlin,  and  again  toured  all 
the  continental  European  countries  and  the  British  Isles.  The  con- 
ditions under  which  the  people  are  employed  around  the  glass  works 
in  continental  Europe  are  so  horrible  that  they  defy  exaggeration. 
Wages  of  continental  European  glassworkers  are  about  one-fourth 


SCHEDULE  B.  711 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

that  paid  to  American  glassworkers,  and  in  addition  to  that  there  is 
female  labor  and  child  labor.  I  saw  married  women  carrying  their 
babies  to  the  factories — the  manufacturer  having  provided  a  nursery, 
so  that  when  the  baby  became  hungry,  the  motner  could  leave  her 
work  and  go  nurse  the  baby.  I  visited  the  large  factory  at  Val  St. 
Lambert,  referred  to  by  one  of  the  previous  speakers,  and  I  saw  young 
girls  wheeling  cinders  and  coal,  and  carrying  boxes  that  I  am  sure 
would  tax  the  strength  of  an  ordinary  man. 

Ten  minutes  is  almost  too  brief  a  time  to  cover  this  matter,  in  the 
way  I  would  like  to  do  it,  and  I  believe  I  had  better  confine  myself 
to  what  we  have  done  in  the  United  States  as  workmen,  trying  to 
meet  this  evil  of  foreign  competition. 

When  the  tariff  was  reduced  in  1893  or  1894,  goods  were  shipped 
into  this  country  by  the  boatload,  loaded  in  cars  and  laid  down  in 
the  factory  yards  in  competition  with  the  products  of  the  American 
workmen,  cheaper  than  the  labor  cost.  A  large  number  of  our  plants 
were  thrown  into  idleness.  We  accepted  a  20  per  cent  reduction  in 
wages.  We  doubled  our  production  of  goods  in  a  large  number  of 
lines,  particularly  the  blown  stem  ware,  such  as  plain  tumblers, 
glasses  for  wines,  cordials,  cocktails,  and  that  class  or  goods.  When 
the  tariff  was  changed  the  American  manufacturer  restored  that  20 
per  cent  reduction  in  wages,  but  we  have  never  changed  back  to  our 
old  system  of  production.  That  increased  production  that  was  granted 
at  tHat  time  still  remains  in  force. 

Two  years  ago  on  chemical  lines,  or  wares  used  in  laboratories  and 
hospitals,  which  I  understand  comes  in  free  of  duty  and  on  which  class 
of  goods  I  understand  there  is  considerable  deception — not  smuggling, 
but  deception — practiced  by  the  importers  of  this  country,  we  in- 
creased our  production  90  per  cent.  We  removed  the  limit  of  pro- 
duction and  reduced  the  wages  on  certain  lines  with  a  view  of  enabling 
the  American  manufacturer  to  meet  the  foreign  competitor  and  at  the 
same  time  protect  the  American  workman,  so  as  to  assure  him  a  little 
more  steady  work  than  he  had  enjoyed.  I  am  glad  to  say  it  has  done 
some  good,  but  that  it  has  not  entirely  remedied  this  evil.  I  want 
to  say  that  every  time  the  tariff  has  been  touched  and  there  has  been 
a  reduction  in  glassware,  it  has  meant  a  reduction  in  wages  and  in- 
creased production.  It  has  meant  a  change  hi  system  and  it  has  a 
general  disturbing  effect  upon  the  American  glass  industry". 

I  do  not  want  you  gentlemen  to  think  that  the  American  glass- 
worker  receives  a  very  high  rate  of  wage.  I  am  familiar  with  the 
general  cut-glass  industry.  I  am  familiar  with  the  man  who  makes 
the  blanks  and  am  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  general  cut-glass 
industry  of  this  country.  The  men  who  cut  the  glass  are  the  lowest- 
paid  skilled  mechanics  in  the  United  States  of  America.  The  men 
are  obliged  to  serve  five  years'  apprenticeship  in  that  department  of 
the  trade.  There  are  men  working  in  that  industry  for  $9  a  week, 
and  they  are  not  the  youngest  men.  The  minimum  rate  for  the 
union  glass  cutter  is  $15  a  week  for  55  hours'  work.  I  do  not  think 
anybody  will  say  that  is  an  exorbitant  wage.  The  average  wage  is 
just  about  as  Mr.  Carey  states,  at  union  shops,  sixteen  to  seventeen 
dollars  a  week.  There  are  nonunion  shops  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  in  south  Jersey  that  employ  boys  and  girls.  The  average 
wage  is  about  $7  a  week. 


712  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  do  the  blowers  get  ? 

Mr.  HOWE.  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  want  you  to  be  timid  about  asking 
me  questions.  I  am  familiar  with  the  wage  paid  in  every  line,  from 
the  small  incandescent  electric  bulb  on  up.  A  man  starts  in  at  $2.80 
a  day.  The  blower  gets  $4.50.  The  man  that  blows  that  little  glass 
globe  that  covers  that  electric  bulb,  when  it  is  done  on  the  American 
system,  gets  $4.50  a  day,  but  when  it  is  blown  by  the  German 
method — we  have  instituted  the  German  method  with  a  view  of 
trying  to  meet  the  competition  of  Austria,  Bohemia,  and  other 
southern  continental  European  countries— the  blower  of  that  class 
of  goods  receives  $6  a  day.  One  of  his  helpers  receives  $4  a  day ;  the 
next  helper  receives  $3  a  day.  They  are  in  a  graduating  period. 
The  youngest  man  in  the  shop  receives  $3;  the  next  man  in  the 
graduating  period  receives  $4;  and  the  next  man  $6  a  day. 

Mr.  PALMER.  They  are  a  very  highly  paid  class  of  skilled  labor? 

Mr.  KOWE.  That  depends  upon  how  you  place  them.  There  are 
about  30,000  skilled  glassworkers  in  the  United  States.  We  have 
approximately  9,000  members  in  our  organization.  The  average 
wage  of  our  members  for  the  year  is  $14  a  week. 

Mr.  PALMER.  For  blowers  ? 

Mr.  ROWE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  average  wage  of  the  blower  is  $14  a  week? 

Mr.  ROWE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Does  that  include  helpers  and  apprentices  ? 

Mr.  ROWE.  No,  sir.  That  includes  only  the  glassworker.  The 
average  wage  paid  members  of  our  organization  for  the  year  is  $14  a 
week. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Palmer  asked  you  to  confine  your  statements 
to  the  blowers. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  just  told  me  that  the  wages  of  the  blowers  ran 
from  S3  to  $4.50  a  day. 

Mr.  ROWE.  From  S3  to  S6  a  day. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Now  you  say  that  the  average  of  the  blowers  in  your 
organization  is  SI  4  a  week. 

Mr.  ROWE.  That  is  for  the  year;  the  average  for  the  year.  You 
will  understand  in  the  glass  trade  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  ingredi- 
ents not  running  properly.  The  sand  may  not  be  in  proper  shape; 
the  soda  may  not  be  in  proper  shape;  the  lead  may  be  bad.  A  man 
reports  to  work  on  Monday  morning,  and  it  is  found  that  the  glass  is 
bad  and  he  is  knocked  out  of  that  day's  work.  That  glass  is  ladled 
out  and  remelted. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  It  is  piecework,  is  it? 

Mr.  ROWE.  About  85  per  cent  of  the  ware  produced  in  the  United 
States  is  on  the  piecework  basis. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  There  is  a  certain  period  of  the  year  when  the  glass- 
workers  do  not  work  at  all,  is  there  not? 

Mr.  ROWE.  The  only  period  is  two  weeks  in  the  summer.  The 
only  stop  is  the  first  two  weeks  in  July.  That  is  the  only  compulsory 
stop,  and  it  is  the  vacation  period  agreed  on  between  the  manufac- 
turers and  the  workers. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  Do  you  represent  the  same  organization  that  is 
represented  by  Mr.  Kalkner  ( 


SCHEDULE   fe.  713 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  HOWE.  No,  sir;  he  represented  the  National  Window  Glass- 
workers  and  I  represent  everything  that  is  made  in  glass,  etc.,  except 
window  glass. 

Here  is  a  little  pamphlet  that  I  wrote,  reporting  to  our  convention 
held  at  Montreal,  Quebec,  in  July,  1912,  giving  the  conditions  pre- 
vailing in  the  British  Isles,  England  and  Scotland,  and  particularly 
in  France  and  Belgium,  Holland,  Germany,  Austria,  and  Bohemia. 
I  would  like  to  leave  a  copy  of  this  with  the  committee,  and  I  would 
like  to  mail  a  copy  of  this  to  each  member  of  the  committee,  if  they 
have  time  to  look  it  over. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  hand  that  to  the  stenographer  it  will 
be  printed  in  the  record,  where  everybody  will  see  it. 

Mr.  ROWE.  I  would  be  glad  to  leave  a  copy  of  our  quarterly  report, 
showing  that  from  June  1,  1911,  to  June  1,  1912,  our  average  unem- 
ployed membership  was  14  per  cent.  I  would  also  like  to  leave  a 
copy  of  the  quarterly  statement  of  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Associa- 
tion, which  shows  their  average  number  of  unemployed  men  in  the  past 
year  was  25  per  cent. 

We  have  a  large  number  of  idle  men  in  the  American  glass  industries. 
We  have  no  stone  wall  around  the  industry;  we  teach  the  American 
apprentice,  and  admit  him  to  our  organization  without  any  high 
initiation  fee;  and  we  do  everything  we  possibly  can.  At  the  same 
time  we  try  to  work  in  harmony  with  trie  manufacturers,  in  order 
to  have  all  glassware  used  in  the  United  States  made  by  American 
workmen. 

You  can  go  into  any  5  and  10  cent  store  in  this  country  and  you 
will  see  there  the  stem  ware  from  Belgium  and  Germany.  I  visited 
the  McAlpine  Hotel  on  Monday  and  one  contract  for  stem  ware 
alone — bar  goods  such  as  cordial  glasses,  wineglasses,  goblets,  and 
high-ball  glasses,  etc.,  amounted  to  $30,000  in  one  order,  to  be  sup- 
plied through  Wanamaker,  importers  for  Val  St.  Lambert  Glass  Co., 
of  Brussels,  Belgium. 

The  chandeliers  in  this  room  are  not  made  in  this  country. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  say  the  chandeliers  in  this  room  are  imported  ? 

Mr.  ROWE.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  not  made  in  the  United  States. 
They  can  not  compete  with  the  imported  article. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  must  remember  that  they  were  all  put  in  before 
the  Democrats  got  control. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Rowe,  you  may  file  your  briefs  and  they  will 
be  printed  in  the  record. 

BRIEFS  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  T.  W.  ROWE. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  7,  1913. 

Hon.  O.  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  In  view  of  the  following  facts  I  hereby  protest  in  behalf  of  the 
American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  against  any  reduction  of  the  present  tariff 
rates  placed  on  imported  glasswares. 

First.  Approximately  there  are  125,000  people  employed  in  the  American  glass 
industry.  Of  this  number  there  are,  at  least.  30,000  skilled  mechanics. 

Second.  The  wages  paid  the  skilled  glassworkers  in  continental  Europe  are  about 
one-fourth  and  the  unskilled  labor  about  one-third  the  rate  paid  in  the  United  States, 
while  the  cost  of  materials  essential  to  glassware  production  is  equal,  and  the  advan- 


714  TARIFF   SEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 


rage,  long  hours  of  labc 
homes  and  stores,  with  their  independence-destroying  systems,  all  contribute  their 
share  toward  large  importations  of  glasswares  and  their  accompanying  injurious  effect 
to  the  American  workmen. 

Fourth.  Due  to  the  aforestated  truths,  the  members  of  the  American  Flint  Glass 
Workers'  Union  reduced  wages  on  certain  lines,  doubled  their  day's  work  with  no 
material  increase  in  wages  on  other  lines,  increased  production  on  other  lines,  and 
suffered  many  other  sacrifices  for  the  purpose  of  having  glasswares  used  in  the  United 
States,  made  by  American  workmen,  and  steady  work,  with  its  attending  blessings 
enjoyed  by  them  and  their  families. 

Fifth.  Notwithstanding  the  facts  cited,  25  per  cent  of  the  members  of  the  Glass 
Bottle  Blowers'  Association,  and  14  per  cent  of  the  members  of  the  American  Flint 
Glass  Workers'  Union  were  in  total  idleness  during  the  fiscal  year,  June,  1911,  to 
May  31,  1912,  while  the  continental  European  glass  workers  were  steadily  employed 
and  their  product  landed  on  our  shores  and  distributed  among  our  people. 

Evil  competition  in  the  American  glass  industry,  due  to  the  disturbing  effect  of 
foreign  importations  and  domestic  rivalry,  causes  blown  glasswares  to  be  sold  at  amaz- 
ingly low  prices,  and  that  fearful  fact  renders  the  present  American  wage  and  condi- 
tion insecurable,  and  aggravates  an  intensified  nonprofitable  relation  between  the 
employer  and  employee,  which  may  lead  to  a  terrible  conflict  if  present  tariff  rates 
on  glasswares  are  reduced. 

In  substantiation  of  the  facts  stated,  I  submit  herewith  a  copy  of  the  report  ot 
the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union,  delegate  to  the  International  Congress  of 
Glass  Workers,  held  in  Berlin,  September,  1911,  and  respectfully  call  your  attention 
to  the  facts  submitted  and  comparisons  in  wages,  labor  cost,  cost  of  living,  etc.,  as 
printed  on  pages  4,  5,  10,  11,  13,  24,  26,  28,  29,  30,  36,  44,  46,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  52,  53,  54, 
55,  56,  57,  58,  59,  62,  63.  Please  observe  that  this  report  was  written  in  June,  1912, 
and  intended  only  for  the  enlightenment  of  the  members  of  the  American  Flint  Glass 
Workers'  Union. 

Therefore,  we  beseech  you  not  to  reduce  the  present  tariff  rates  on  glassware. 
Respectfully, 

T.  W.  ROWE, 
President  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union,  Toledo,  Ohio, 

In  behalf  of  said  Union. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REPORT  OF  T.  W.  ROWE,  DELEGATE  TO  THE  INTERNATIONAL  CON- 
GRESS OF  GLASSWORKERS.  BERLIN,  GERMANY,  SEPTEMBER,  1911. 


WORKING   HOURS. 


The  British  flint  glass  worker  toils  six  turns  of  eight  hours  each,  or  48  hours  a  week. 
The  turn  generally  commences  on  Tuesday  morning  and  they  complete  their  week's 
work  early  Saturday  morning.  But  in  some  cases  they  commence  at  7  o'clock  Mon- 
day morning  and  finish  their  week  on  Friday  night. 


Another  surprising  feature  connected  with  the  British  glass  working  conditions  is 
their  lack  of  uniformity  in  production.  Each  department  establishes  that  which 
they  term  a  move.  In  some  districts  they  are  permitted  to  make  two  moves  in  one 
turn,  in  others  two  and  one-quarter,  in  others  two  and  one-half  and  in  some  places, 
they  make  three  moves  in  a  turn.  This,  of  course,  makes  their  weekly  rate  of  wage 
different,  and  it  may  be  pertinent  to  state  all  work  on  a  piecework  basis.  The  wages 
of  the  very  best  caster  place  workmen  in  the  British  Isles  would  run  from  $13  to  $18 
a  week,  and  in  only  a  few  cases  do  they  exceed  $15  a  week.  The  servitor's  wages 
would  run  from  *10  to  $12  a  week,  and  the  foot  maker  from  $7  to  $9  a  week.  The 
second-class  caster  place  gaffer  would  average  $11  to  $12  a  week,  the  servitor  would 
average  $8  to  $9  a  week,  and  the  foot  maker  $6  to  $7  a  week.  The  highest  paid  wine 
workmen  would  run  from  $12  to  §14  a  week,  the  servitor  $8  to  $10  a  week,  and  the 
gatherer  from  SG  to  §7  a  week.  A  second-class  wine  shop  would  average  from  $10  to 
$12  a  week,  oervitor  §7.50  to  $8.50  a  week,  foot  makers  from  $5.75  to  $6.50  a  week. 


SCHEDULE  B.  715 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  best  pressers  in  England  earn  $9  and  $10  a  week;  finishers  earn  the  same  amount, 
and  the  gatherers  earn  $6  and  $7,  and  in  some  cases  as  low  as  $5  a  week. 
The  aforegoing  wages  are  the  very  best  that  are  paid. 

APPRENTICE   SYSTEM. 

A  very  peculiar  feature  connected  with  the  British  glass  industry  is  their  appren- 
tice system.  When  a  boy  is  put  on  as  an  apprentice  he  must  work  at  whatever  wages 
the  employer  deems  it  wise  to  pay  until  he  reaches  the  age  of  21  years  in  England, 
in  Scotland  23  years,  and  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  there  are  young  men  serving 
their  apprenticeship  blowing  paste  and  iron  mold  wares  at  2  shillings  a  turn,  or  about 
48  cents;  and  there  are  apprentices  gathering  shades  and  caster  place  wares  for  $3.50 
a  week  of  48  hours.  An  exceptionally  favored  apprentice  doea  not  exceed  $5  a  week. 
Secretary  Hussellbee  informed  me  that  he  served  in  a  wine  chair  for  six  years  at  $4 
a  week.  Secretary  Bradford  ser\ed  six  years  and  10  months  at  the  same  rate,  and 
several  years  at  $2.50  a  week.  Small  boys  gathering  handles  and  doing  other  small 
boys'  work  at  a  factory  receive  1  shilling  or  24  cents  a  turn,  and  this  system  has  pre- 
vailed since  1848. 

ELECTRIC-BtJLB    CONDITIONS. 

There  are  two  factories  located  on  the  Tyne  making  electric  bulbs — one  at  Lem- 
mington  and  the  other  at  New  Castle.  The  blower  gathers  and  blows  his  bulb.  On 
bulbs  2$  inches  and  smaller  they  receive  Is.,  or  24  cents,  a  hundred;  from  2f  to  3 
inches  in  diameter,  they  pay  Is.  2d.,  or  28  cents,  a  hundred;  on  3  to  3£  inches,  they 
receive  32  cents  a  hundred.  On  large  tungsten  bulbs  they  receive  24  to  34  cents  a 
hundred,  and  the  blower  is  assisted  by  one  boy,  who  receives  48  cents  a  day  of  11 
hours. 

At  Ponders  End,  12  miles  from  London,  where  the  Edison  &  Swan  Co.  employs 
38  bulb  workers  and  8  men  on  tube  shops,  the  bulb  blower  gathers  and  blows  his  own 
bulb.  On  the  email  sizes  they  receive  36  cents  a  hundred  and  on  the  larger  sizes 
they  receive  40  cents  a  hundred.  They  work  on  a  strictly  piecework  basis.  They 
explain  the  reason  they  receive  a  higher  rate  of  wages  per  hundred  for  blowing  bulbs 
than  that  paid  in  New  Castle  is  due  to  the  fact  that  at  Ponders  End  they  use  a  carbon 
mold  that  requires  no  paste  or  any  wetting.  They  refer  to  it  as  being  made  of  plum- 
bago or  black  lead  and  assert  that  it  is  a  slower  method  of  blowing  bulbs.  Conse- 
quently they  secure  a  higher  rate  of  wages. 

TUBE    SHOPS. 

The  tube  shops  at  this  factory  work  10J  hours  a  day,  and  they  work  with  two  men 
on  the  shop.  The  gaffer  receives  $3  a  day  and  the  servitor  $2  a  day.  This  company 
operates  with  two  furnaces,  an  eight  pot  and  a  six  pot,  and  has  quite  a  large  plant 
fitting  out  electric  bulbs. 

SUMMER   STOP. 

The  British  glassmakers  have  no  summer  stop. 

WAGES   IN   OTHER   TRADES. 

In  addition  to  the  wages  paid  to  the  glassworkers  in  England,  I  inquired  about 
men  employed  at  other  trades  and  I  found  that  the  wages  of  other  mechanics  are  as 
follows: 

Blacksmiths,  53  hours  a  week $9.  00-$9.  50 

Carpenters,  49£  hours  a  week 9.  00 

Stonemasons  and  bricklayers,  49£  hours  a  week 9.  50 

Motormen,  52£  hours  a  week 

Conductors  

Teamsters,  60  hours 

Railway  engineers,  per  day 

Firemen,  per  day 

Gatemen  and  guards,  a  week 

Car  cleaners  and  examiners,  a  week —     1-  85-  4.  50 

Coal  miners,  8  hours  a  day,  a  week 


716  TARIFF    HEARINGS'. 

PABAGBAPHS  97-9S— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE. 

Longshoremen,  12  to  16  cents  an  hour,  paid  only  for  time  worked. 

Female  clerks  in  department  stores,  $1  to  $1.50  a  week,  they  work  from  8  a.  m.  lo 
8  p.  m.  daily,  except  Saturday,  and  on  Saturday  they  work  from  8  a.  m.  to  10  and 
11  p.  m. 

COST   OP  LIVING   SEPTEMBER,  1911. 

In  discussing  the  extremely  low  rate  of  wages  in  the  British  Isles,  and  expressing 
surprise  as  to  how  the  people  could  exist,  they  generally  try  to  excuse  their  position 
by  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  living  between  their  cost  and  the  cost  in  the  United 
States,  but  I  found  very  little  difference  in  that  respect.  At  Barnsley  Mrs.  J.  J. 
Rudge  informed  me  that  roast  meats  were  selling  at  the  following  prices: 

Cents. 

Roast  beef,  veal,  mutton pound . .  2O-25 

Mutton  chops do 25 

Round  steak do 25 

Flour do 

Potatoes bushel . .        60 

Cabbage head. .  4 

Kidney  beans pound . . 

Tomatoes do 20 

Coffee do. ...        43 

Tea do 45-50 

Bacon do 25 

Eggs dozen . .        37 

Bread 4  pounds. .  .      13 

Granulated  sugar pound . .  5 

Soft  coal  in  Manchester  $5  a  ton,  and  in  Barnsley,  in  the  heart  of  the  coal  district, 
$3  a  ton. 

1  have  the  prices  of  food  furnished  by  Brother  Challingsworth.  at  Birmingham,  and 
by  another  brother  at  Ponders  End.  and  they  all  compare  favorably  with  the  prices 
I  quoted  above.  In  the  consideration  of  these  prices,  you  must  bear  in  mind  that 
they  prevailed  during  the  latter  part  of  August  and  the  first  of  September,  1911, 
while  I  was  in  their  midst. 

I  found  as  a  rule  the  glassworkers  in  England  paid  less  rent  than  the  American  glass 
worker,  but  they  live  in  a  smaller  and  a  different  kind  of  a  dwelling.  Their  rents 
generally  run  from  $6  to  $8  per  month.  As  a  rule,  they  pay  from  $1.50  to  $2  for  their 
shoes,  from  $1.50  to  $2  for  their  hats,  from  $5  to  $8  for  their  suits  or  an  overcoat.  In 
that  respect  they  live  a  little  more  economically  than  the  American  glassworker. 
But  in  the  consideration  of  these  points  you  must  bear  in  mind  t<hat  there  are  cheap 
shoes,  hats,  suits,  and  overcoats  to  sell  in  this  country,  but,  as  a  rule,  the  members  of 
our  organization  do  not  care  for  that  class  of  goods. 

Our  English  brethren  seemed  amazed  when  I  quoted  the  minimum  wage  for  the 
first-class  caster  place  gafi'er  in  our  country  as  $8  a  day  (33s.),  the  servitor  $6.50  a  day 
(27s.),  and  gatherer  $5  a  day  (20s.),  and  for  our  second-class  caster  place  shops  making 
blanks  and  wines  $7. 10  a  day  for  the  gaffer  (29s.1),  for  the  servitor  $5. 40  (22s.),  and  for  the 
gatherer  $4.30  a  day  (17s.').  I  informed  them  that  there  were  several  workmen  in  this 
country  who  were  receiving  in  excess  of  that  minimum  rate  as  prescribed  by  our  caster 
place  list.  I  also  did  my  best  to  impress  upon  their  minds  the  wages  paid  to  the  bottle 
blower  in  this  country,  and  told  them  that  if  a  bottle  blower  could  not  earn  from  $7  to 
$10  a  day  he  was  not  considered  much  of  a  mechanic.  I  compared  the  wages  paid  to 
the  men  working  semiautomatic  machines  with  the  wages  prevailing  in  this  country. 
It  is  only  a  mild  expression  to  say  that  my  remarks  were  so  astounding  to  them  that 
they  could  hardly  credit  the  same.  I  told  them  that  I  would  send  them  our  printed 
list  on  my  return  home,  which  I  did,  and  alter  their  perusal  of  the  same  I  received 
letters  from  each  locality  that  I  visited  complimenting  me  on  the  splendid  systematic 
manner  in  which  we  conduct  our  business  affairs  and  the  marvelous  accomplishments 
of  our  organization  as  compared  to  those  prevailing  in  the  old  country. 

NIGHT    WORK. 

The  question  of  night  work  was  reviewed  and  he  declared  that  we  will  have  to  work 
for  years  until  night  work  is  abolished  not  only  in  pot  furnaces  but  in  factories  having 
continuous  tanks.  He  declared  that  the  men  should  not  be  obliged  to  work  later  than 
10  o'clock  at  night  nor  earlier  than  5  o'clock  in  the  morning. 


SCHEDULE   B.  717 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

CHILD   LABOR. 

Continuing  his  report,  Secretary  Girbig  pointed  out  the  flagrant  abuse  of  child  labor 
and  the  great  discredit  it  was  to  the  capitalists.  He  asserted  that  if  the  children  of 
wealthy  people  were  compelled  to  work,  child  labor  would  long  ago  have  been  abol- 
ished. He  advocated  the  abolition  of  female  employment  at  work  injurious  to  their 
health,  and  urged  fraternal  cooperation  regarding  the  publication  of  a  periodical 
international  bulletin  to  be  printed  in  all  languages  in  order  that  all  countries  could 
keep  in  touch  with  the  international  glass-working  conditions. 

The  reports  submitted  by  Delegates  Delzant  of  France  and  Rowe  of  America,  also 
the  Austrian  and  Swedish  reports,  were  referred  to  in  a  very  complimentary  manner. 

HUNGARIAN   GLASSWORKERS'    CONDITIONS. 

The  Hungarian  glassworkers,  with  headquarters  in  Budapest,  reported  that  the 
capitalists  of  Hungary  are  rapidly  organizing  to  regulate  selling  prices  and  to  eliminate 
evil  competition  among  themselves.  The  Austro-Hungarian  "Notenbank"  is 
supplying  the  money  for  them.  The  delegate  stated  that  the  State  and  industry  are 
very  closely  connected.  On  account  of  the  glass  business  being  so  large,  the  State  has 
purchased  a  railroad,  and  mines,  arms,  and  machine  factories,  and  even  a  great  number 
of  tenement  houses.  This  state  of  affairs  has  had  a  bad  effect  upon  the  trade  move- 
ment, as  it  was  obliged  to  meet  organized  capital,  assisted  by  the  powerful  State.  On 
this  account  the  glassworkers  are  not  well  organized,  as  assistance  can  only  be  given 
with  ministerial  permission,  which  is  granted  only  to  unimportant  educational  and 
charitable  societies.  Where  unions  are  organized  it  is  distinctly  understood  that  no 
support  can  be  given  them  in  case  of  lockout  or  strike.  If  the  leaders  of  the  Govern- 
ment had  their  way,  there  would  be  no  trade  union  at  all  in  Hungary. 

When  glassworkers  were  first  organized  they  were  taken  in  the  building  trades' 
organization. 

In  recent  years  the  glassworkers  of  Hungary  have  been  forming  a  separate  union, 
and  have  attempted  to  establish  a  system  of  relief.  They  adopted  the  title  of  "Hun- 
garian Glassworkers'  Union, "  and  sent  a  set  of  rules  to  the  Government,  which  provided 
that  the  union  shall  not  give  any  relief  to  their  members  on  strike,  yet  these  rules  were 
not  accepted  by  the  Government.  It  demanded  such  modification  of  the  laws  as 
would  permit  the  Government  to  have  control  of  the  union.  After  some  time  the 
glassworkers  submitted.  They  now  express  the  hope  that  later  on  they  will  be  able 
to  exercise  more  freedom  in  the  matter. 

The  latest  trouble  is  a  secession  movement  among  the  glassworkers,  and  they  declare 
their  willingness  to  affiliate  with  the  international  movement.  They  have  appealed 
to  continental  European  workers  to  assist  them  in  their  efforts  to  organize  a  Hungarian 
Glassworkers'  Union,  and  hope  to  have  a  large  representation  at  the  next  convention. 

The  Hungarian  delegates  reported  that  there  are  from  8,000  to  10,000  glassworkere 
iu  Hungary,  but  they  are  not  allowed  to  hold  private  meetings.  Every  meeting  that  is 
held  by  the  glassworkers  is  under  the  control  of  the  police  force,  and  police  officers 
are  stationed  in  their  meetings.  This  renders  matters  very  difficult.  They  further 
state  that  the  Austrian  glassworkers  arrive  in  their  province,  fail  to  unite  with  them, 
and  in  that  respect  they  are  injured.  They  report  that  social  democracy  is  increasing 
and  better  results  are  expected . 

HUNGARIAN   CONDITIONS. 

In  Hungary  women  are  employed  as  hod  carriers  and  building  laborers;  they  carry 
the  hod,  brick,  mortar,  stone,  drag  lumber  and  iron  through  buildings,  and  all  at  the 
low  wage  of  2  marks — 50  cents — in  summer,  and  40  cents  in  winter.  The  French 
peasant  as  typified  by  Millet  in  his  picture  The  Man  with  the  Hoe,  is  certainly  pre- 
sented in  this  industrial  condition. 

MEXICO. 

The  Mexican  glassworkers  cabled  greetings  and  expressed  regrets  at  their  inability 
to  send  a  delegate. 

Carl  Max,  secretary  of  Toluca,  Mexico,  reported  that  in  their  Republic  there  are 
six  glass  factories,  the  largest  of  which  is  in  Toluca,  with  37  union  members.  They 
pay  weekly  assessments  of  1  peso  50  centavos,  equal  to  78  cents.  The  factory  at  To- 
luca is  a  bottle  factory.  Besides  this  factory  there  are  five  small  factories,  one  each 
in  Puebla,  Monterey,  Texcoco,  and  two  in  other  places.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
Frenchmen,  only  a  few  Mexicans  are  employed  in  Puebla  at  poor  wages  and  poor  con- 


718  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

ditions.  The  glass  factory  in  Texcoco  began  work  on  December  15,  1909,  producing 
only  plate  glass.  There  are  30  glassworkers  and  journeymen,  imported  from  Germany, 
now  working  there.  He  further  reported  that  wages  have  been  going  down,  and  the 
union  has  been  obliged  to  contest  some  very  fierce  battles.  In  some  cases  the  men 
were  fined  $50  each  for  going  on  strike.  When  there  is  any  serious  trouble  on,  the 
workmen  are  imported  from  France,  Germany,  and  Belgium,  and  he  asked  that  care 
be  exercised  in  this  respect. 

FRANCE. 

The  French  delegate  reported  that  they  have  a  three,  four,  and  five  shift  system  in 
their  glass  factories,  and  they  urged  Congress  to  establish  an  eight-hour-a-day  uni- 
versal rule. 

Child  labor  seems  to  be  a  serious  injury  to  the  French  workman.  The  law  provides 
that  children  under  12  years  of  age  shall  not  be  employed,  but  the  delegate  from 
France  stated  that  the  law  was  violated  and  that  children  are  terribly  exploited. 
There  is  a  movement  among  the  French  workmen  fixing  the  minimum  age  limit  at  18 
years,  but  the  French  employers  are  strenuously  objecting  to  this  change  because  they 
assert  that  if  it  is  adopted  their  country  will  be  flooded  with  imported  goods  from 
Germany. 

Boys  at  the  age  of  15  years  are  glassworkers  in  France.  The  fathers  of  these  boys 
are  responsible  for  this  sad  state  of  affairs,  as  they  take  their  children  to  the  factory 
entirely  too  young  and  teach  them  the  business.  Delegate  Delzant  declared  that  the 
international  movement  must  strive  to  end  that  crime. 


The  Italian  delegate  reported  that  thev  work  nine  hours  a  day  and  one  day  each 
week  they  rest.  For  overtime  they  get  time  and  half-time  and  have  a  two-months 
summer  stop,  but  the  manufacturers  complain  of  this  on  account  of  the  cheap  goods 
imported  from  Austria.  ^ 

FRENCH   LABOR    MOVEMENT. 

The  glassworkers'  conditions  in  France  are  poor.  There  is  either  a  lack  of  knowl- 
edge of  the  proper  method  of  conducting  an  organization,  or  they  fail  to  apply  their 
knowledge  in  establishing  the  proper  form  of  organization.  Their  wages  are  very  low, 
being  similar  to  those  prevailing  in  Belgium.  The  principal  blank  manufacturer  is 
in  Boccarat,  and  it  is  impossible  for  an  American  to  visit  that  plant,  as  the  glass  factory 
proper  is  surrounded  by  a  stone  wall  similar  to  the  walls  that  surround  an  American 
prison.  There  is  a  guard  at  the  entrance  protecting  it  with  a  gun  and  a  dog,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  get  into  the  factory  without  consent,  unless  perchance  a  person  may 
get  a  ladder  and  scale  the  wall,  and  that  would  be  a  very  dangerous  attempt. 

The  French  labor  movement  seems  to  be  in  an  anarchistic  state  and  dependent  more 
upon  futile  violent  measures  than  upon  efforts  to  secure  justice  through  effective 
substantial  movement.  Their  low  dues,  no  defense  fund,  "sabotage"  policy  during 
strikes,  their  soup  houses  to  relieve  hunger  and  distress,  appealing  to  other  unions  for 
financial  assistance  during  strikes — all  have  contributed  their  part  toward  the  present 
demoralized  industrial  state. 


The  Bavarian  delegate  reported  poor  conditions  in  his  country.  People  working  in 
the  mirror  factories  earn  from  12  to  15  marks  a  week,  that  is  from  $3  to  $3.75  a  week. 
They  work  from  14  to  18  hours  a  day,  and  during  rush  seasons  they  remain  at  the 
factory  24  hours  a  day.  They  lay  down  and  sleep  while  the  machines  are  in  operation. 
They  reported  that  the  employers  offered  a  prize  to  any  workman  who  would  invent  a 
machine  that  would  reduce  a  workman's  labor.  It  was  asserted  that  they  would  like 
to  see  night  work  abolished,  especially  night  work  at  home.  They  stated  that  they 
have  a  36-hour  rest  a  week,  from  Saturday  G  p.  m.  until  Monday  morning. 


The  Saxonian  delegates  reported  that  they  have  a  12-year  age  limit  for  the  employ- 
ment of  children,  but  the  law  is  flagrantly  violated,  particularly  by  work  done  at  home 
at  night.  He  stated  that  on  the  work  of  glass  beads,  thermometers,  glass  eyes,  pearls 
ornaments  for  Christmas  trees,  and  similar  work  children  3,  4,  5  years  and  older  are 
engaged  at  that  class  of  work.  They  work  so  late  at  night  that  they  fall  asleep  at 


SCHEDULE  B.  719 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

their  school  desks  the  following  day.  The  school  commissioners  have  complained  to 
the  Government  of  the  abuses  of  night  work,  and  they  hope  to  have  the  law  changed 
from  12  to  14  years  and  rigidly  enforce  the  same. 

GERMANY. 

Secretary  Girbig  asserted  that  German  conditions  were  awful  in  this  respect,  but 
they  are  swiftly  changing  matters.  He  stated  that  he  saw  some  very  young  boys 
employed  in  Italy,  but  the  Italian  delegate  took  exceptions  to  this  statement  and  as- 
serted that  they  had  a  14-year  law  and  if  children  were  employed  at  night  work  the 
employer  is  fined  1,000  lire  (1250),  but  carrying-in  boys  can  work  at  the  age  of  12 
years. 

Mr.  Girbig  asserted  that  in  Germany  they  had  a  14-year  child-labor  law. 

AUSTRIA,    SAXONY,   ITALY,   AND   GERMANY. 

The  Austrian  delegate  agreed  with  the  Saxonian  representative.  They  have  a 
law,  but  it  is  violated  and  children  work  at  home,  the  same  as  they  do  in  Saxony. 
They  asserted  that  school  teachers  reported  that  children  6,  7,  and  8  years  old  worked 
at  home  until  midnight  and  are  unable  to  attend  to  their  school  tasks.  They  seem 
completely  exhausted.  The  Saxonian  delegate  asserted  that  union  men  must  work 
out  the  abolition  of  child  labor. 

The  Austrian  delegate  reported  that  on  12  Sundays  only  in  the  year  they  do  not 
have  to  work. 

In  Italy  they  have  10  factory  inspectors  and  the  law  has  never  had  to  close  a  factory. 
They  also  have  no  homework  on  glass. 

Mr.  Horn,  of  Germany,  declared  that  the  German  and  Italian  laws  are  violated, 
owing  to  the  insufficient  penalty  attached.  He  said  that  a  union  glassworker  will 
take  his  12-year-old  boy  to  carry  in,  in  violation  of  the  law,  and  the  proper  thing  to 
do  is  to  urge  upon  their  own  members  to  obey  the  law. 

The  Italian  delegate,  Dotzauer,  stated  that  in  Savona  the  Italian  union  has  a  law 
prohibiting  members  of  their  union  working  with  boys  under  12  years  of  age,  and  he 
thinks  other  unions  should  have  a  similar  law. 

SWEDEN 

Delegate  Joensson,  of  Sweden,  reported  that  their  law  prohibits  the  employment 
of  children  under  16  years  of  age  with  the  exception  that  children  from  13  to  16  can 
work  from  6  to  10  hours  a  day,  but  not  before  6  a.  m.,  and  they  must  be  examined 
by  a  State  physician  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  their  physical  condition  permits 
them  to  work.  He  said  that  factory  inspectors  enforce  the  law  and  there  is  no  viola- 
tion. There  is  no  home  work  done.  The  apprentice  laws  will  be  treated  at  the  next 
legislative  session  in  their  country. 

BELGIUM. 

The  Belgian  laws  are  violated  by  workmen  hiding  the  boys  when  the  inspector 
calls,  and  the  laws  will  be  violated  as  long  as  there  will  be  capitalists.  He  declared 
in  favor  of  a  strong  resolution  and  asserted  that  union  men  should  demand  a  strict 
enforcement  of  the  law.  There  are  1,347  members  in  the  Belgian  Flint  Glass  Workers' 

Union. 

FRANCE   AND   BELGIUM. 

I  did  not  spend  much  time  in  Belgium,  owing  to  the  extreme  difficulty  in  visiting 
factories  in  that  country.  The  glassworking  organizations  are  not  in  very  good  con- 
dition and  they  exercise  very  little  influence  with  the  employer.  They  have  prac- 
tically no  power  to  assist  an  American  to  visit  the  factory.  I  found  the  headquarters 
at  Namur,  in  Belgium,  at  which  city  Val  St.  Lambert  Co.,  which  owns  a  large  factory 
at  Val  St.  Lambert  and  Namur,  is  located.  I  held  a  consultation  with  the  editor  of 
the  glass-trade  journal,  Mr.  Leon  Gris,  and  their  secretary,  who  was  a  delegate  to  the 
congress.  After  some  talk  with  him,  they  promised  to  send  me  the  wages  and  con- 
ditions prevailing  in  their  country,  but  we  regret  to  state  that  to  date  this  has  not 
been  done. 

The  men  making  blanks  for  cutting  work  on  an  unlimited  piecework  basis  and  the 
highest  wage  paid  to  any  gaffer  does  not  exceed  $2.50  a  day.  The  servitor  works 
for  $1.50  to  $1.75  a  day,  and  the  men  gather  for  $1.25  to  $1.50  a  day. 


720  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  Val  St.  Lambert  factory  at  Namur  and  Val  St.  Lambert  are  the  principal  flint- 
glass  concerns  in  this  country. 

The  general  trade-union  condition  in  Belgium  is  in  bad  shape,  as  it  seems  to  be  one 
of  the  poorest  organized  countries  on  the  continent. 

HOLLAND. 

The  representative  from  Holland  reported  that  their  law  prohibits  the  employment 
of  children  under  13  years  of  age,  and  children  are  not  permitted  to  work  before  5 
a.  m.  or  after  10  p.  m.  Night  work  is  prohibited  by  children  under  17  years  of  age. 
The  labor  officials  and  inspectors  are  friendly  to  each  other  and  there  is  no  violation 
of  the  law.  The  flint-glass  workers  do  not  work  at  night  in  Holland,  but  the  bottle 
houses  do  night  work.  Holland  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  has  1,047  members. 
The  best  glassworkers  in  Holland  never  earn  over  $8  a  week  of  58  hours. 

DENMARK. 

In  the  flint-glass  factories  in  Denmark  boys  are  prohibited  to  work  under  12  yeara 
of  age,  and  in  bottle  factories  under  14  years  of  age.  They  have  a  peculiar  system  of 
work  in  Denmark.  One  shift  starts  at  6  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  stops  at  1  o'clock 
at  noon,  the  second  starts  at  1  o'clock  at  noon  and  quits  at  8  o'clock.  They  work  six 
turns  a  week. 

CHILD-LABOR   RESOLUTION   ADOPTED. 

1.  Considering  that  the  employment  of  children  in  the  glass  industry  must  be  work- 
ing a  great  injury  to  their  bodily  and  mental  development,  Congress  considers  it  its 
most  important  duty  to  induce  all  unions  at  any  rate  to  oppose  the  admission  of  chil- 
dren under  14  years  in  glass  factories,  and  the  work  of  apprentices  from  14  to  16  years 
of  age  must  not  exceed  six  hours  a  day. 

2.  That  employment  of  child  labor  at  home  be  abolished. 

FEMALE   LABOR. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  with  the  hope  of  minimizing  the  evil  effect 
of  female  labor  and  the  injustice  committed  against  them  by  unscrupulous  employers: 

1.  The  international  congress  declares  that  female  labor  in  glass  factories  is  in- 
jurious and  decides  that  work  of  women  and  girls  in  glass  factories  must  be  abolished. 

2.  That  so  far  as  women's  work  exists  in  certain  branches  of  the  glass  industry,  namely, 
in  the  cutting  and  glass-blowing  departments,  thermometers,  Christmas-tree  ornaments, 
work  must  not  exceed  eight  hours  a  day,  and  the  companies  shall  pay  the  same  as  they 
pay  to  male  labor,  but  women  shalll  not  be  employed  at  night  work  or  on  Sundays  or 
feast  days. 

This  resolution  excited  a  long  discussion,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  female  toilers  are 
mercilessly  exploited  in  the  British  Isles  and  continental  Europe. 

During  the  hop-picking  season  in  England  the  entire  family  goes  into  the  field. 
After  their  day's  work  they  sleep  under  a  tree;  they  practically  live  in  the  field  during 
the  season.  On  the  Continent  it  is  a  common  thing  to  see  women  employed  in  fields, 
cleaning  streets,  labonng  on  railroads,  and  at  other  laborious  industrial  occupations. 
It  seems  that  there  are  three  times  as  many  women  as  there  are  men  employed  at 
agricultural  labor. 

ASSISTANT    SECRETARY    GHUENZEL?S    ADDRESS. 

Assistant  .Secretary  (jruen/el  read  a  paper  to  the  convention  on  the  subject.  He 
dwelt  at  length  on  the  long  hours  of  labor  governing  female  toilers.  In  many  cases 
mothers  carry  their  baby  to  the  factory,  leave  it  with  a  nurse  until  they  have  finished 
their  day's  work,  then  get  their  baby  and  return  home.  In  some  factories  nurseries 
are  established  and  children  taken  care  of  while  mothers  are  at  work. 

This  question  has  become  so  serious  in  certain  parts  of  Germany  that  the  medical 
association  is  discussing  its  importance  and  the  necessity  of  protective  laws  to  regulate 
the  matter. 


SCHEDULE    B.  721 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

MOTHERS    SELLING   THEIR   CHILDREN. 

I  am  quite  sure  that  I  can  not  use  language  that  would  render  you  sensitive  to  the  vast 
difference  in  the  conditions  prevailing  in  Germany  as  compared  with  those  prevailing 
in  our  country,  principally  as  it  applies  to  child  labor. 

In  certain  cases  men  own  or  rent  a  little  farm,  and  may  live  from  5  to  to  10  miles 
from  the  factory  in  which  they  are  employed.  They  walk  to  the  factory  on  Sunday 
night,  and  sleep  and  eat  at  the  factory  each  day  and  night  during  the  week,  returning 
to  their  homes  on  Saturday  night.  In  cases  where  mothers  are  obliged  to  carry  their 
children  to  the  factories  they  leave  them  at  the  nursery,  and  I  am  told  that  many 
mothers  sell  their  children  for  100  marks  ($25)  to  the  employer  in  order  that  they  could 
be  raised  and  employed  at  the  factory.  It  was  stated  that  many  poor  families  have  so 
many  children  and  are  in  such  impoverished  condition  that  the  children  are  a  drudge 
upon  the  mother  and  they  are  "glad  to  dispose  of  them." 

This  statement  seemed  to  be  so  surprising  to  me  that  I  made  further  inquiry  in 
the  matter.  After  observing  how  the  boys  employed  at  the  factory,  even  those 
whose  parents  live  in  the  same  city,  sleep  and  eat  at  the  factory  during  their  young 
boyhood  days,  then  when  they  reach  a  certain  age  they  are  obliged  to  enlist  in  the 
army  for  a  period  of  three  years  and  are  away  from  home  in  that  manner  from  their 
early  childhood,  I  could  plainly  see  that  their  parents  became  reconciled.  Their 
struggle  for  existence  is  so  keen  that  it  is  a  relief  for  the  employer  or  government  to 
take  charge  of  their  male  offspring  in  this  manner. 

CRIME    OF   BOHEMIA   AND   AUSTRIA. 

The  delegates  were  bitter  in  their  condemnation  of  employing  women  in  glass  work- 
ing departments  and  cutting  shops.  In  Austria  the  trade  is  seriously  demoralized  by 
the  employment  of  women  cutters  who  work  10  hours  a  day,  60  hours  a  week,  for  9 
marks  a  week  ($1 .75) .  This  is  the  general  rate  of  wage  prevailing  for  women  employees 
at  cutting  glass. 

The  Bohemian  delegate  reported  that  hundreds  of  women  are  working  in  glass- 
cutting  shops  and  their  rate  of  wage  is  the  same  as  that  paid  the  men.  He  declared 
his  constituents  would  not  support  a  movement  entirely  abolishing  female  labor. 
He  stated  that  glass  cutters  earn  from  2  to  4  marks  (48  to  96  cents)  a  day  of  eight  hours. 

HYGIENIC   RESOLUTION. 

The  following  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  with  the  hope  of  improving  the 
sanitary  conditions  at  glass  factories : 

"Considering  that  work  in  the  glass  industry  is  very  ruinous  to  health,  and  still  more 
injurious  through  bad  ventilation,  smoke,  dust,  gas,  impure  drinking  water,  and  other 
uncleanliness,  congress  requests  the  organized  comrades  to  demand  the  abolition  of 
all  these  evils  where  they  exist  and  to  see  to  it  that  better  arrangements  are  made." 

IMMIGRATION   OF   GLASSWORKERS. 

Considering  the  fact  that  in  all  cultivated  parts  of  the  world,  the  propertied  classes 
claim  the  right  of  making  the  working  classes  subservient  to  them,  interfering  with 
their  human  and  political  rights,  oppressing  and  exploiting  them. 

Considering  also  that  modern  capitalism  combines  internationally  in  order  to  show 
its  power  to  the  working  classes,  the  congress  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  the  urgent  duty 
of  the  working  classes  also  to  combine  internationally,  forming  a  firm  unity,  whose 
power  should  be  equal  to  that  of  the  capitalistic  international  organization. 

In  order  to  create  such  a  unity  it  must  be  the  duty  of  every  comrade  to  affiliate  first 
with  his  national  union,  administrated  according  to  the  principles  of  the  modern  work- 
ing-class movement  in  order  to  safeguard  his  rights  in  the  international  union.  To 
facilitate  this  purpose  the  congress  proposes: 

1.  Members  of  a  glassworkers'  union  affiliated  with  the  International  Glass^  \Yorkers 
Secretariat,  when  moving  to  another  country  shall,  on  demand,  be  received  into 
respective  national  or  local  union  without  fee  of  entrance. 

The  union  booklet  will  serve  to  show  that  they  are  entitled  to  such  entrance,  pro- 
vided they  are  not  delinquent  in  their  regular  contributions.  The  notification  must 
take  place  within  four  weeks  after  the  arrival.  After  a  membership  of  four  weeks 
the  member  acquires  all  rights,  if  he  has  worked  permanently  during  this  time. 

7S0590— VOL  1— 13 40 


722  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE.    •> 

2.  Work  can  only  be  accepted  with  the  consent  of  the  respective  national  union 
to  which  the  member  seeking  work  has  bejpnged  up  to  that  time.     In  case  of  emigra- 
tion the  union  of  that  country  must  apply  to  the  country  to  which  that  member  intends 
to  move,  making  inquiries  whether  there  are  any  objections  to  his  seeking  work. 
Regarding  facilities  respecting  emigration  and  immigration,  the  various  national 
unions  must  mutually  agree. 

3.  We  most  emphatically  condemn  the  practice  of  glassworkers  emigrating  and 
accepting  work  at  the  glass  trade  in  a  foreign  country  contrary  to  the  principles  of 
this  declaration  and  resolution,  and  we  denounce  those  who  emigrate  to  accept  the 
places  of  striking  glassworkers  as  traitors  to  the  working  class  and  humanity's  interest, 
and  we  hereby  pledge  our  honor  to  exercise  our  best  efforts  to  end  such  injurious 
habits. 

EMIGRATION   QUESTION. 

When  this  resolution  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  congress  in  the  form  of  a 
resolution  your -delegate  and  the  Italian  representative  had  the  resolution  amended 
to  a  much  stronger  degree.  We  severely  criticized  glassworkers  migrating  from  one 
country  to  another  and  accepting  work  regardless  of  union  or  nonunion  conditions. 
We  cited  a  number  of  instances  in  this  country  where  we  were  and  are  now  gravely 
injured  and  our  department  affairs  seriously  jeopardized  by  injudicious  action  of 
this  kind.  The  Italian  delegate  stated  a  number  of  instances  where  they  had  been 
injured  by  men  migrating  from  various  countries  to  their  country  during  times  of 
strikes  and  helping  the  employers  to  defeat  them. 

The  impression  seemed  to  prevail  among  the  delegates  that  we  charged  a  high 
initiation  fee  to  foreigners.  They  had  our  association  confused  with  the  $500  foreign 
initiation  fee  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association.  I 
explained  our  law  and  the  change  of  our  position  in  this  particular  respect  the  past 
few  years,  which  seemed  to  satisfy  the  delegates,  except  that  they  were  almost  unani- 
mous in  their  opinion  that  if  glassworkers,  members  of  the  union,  migrated  from  one 
country  to  another  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  these  resolutions,  their  cards 
should  be  recognized  and  they  should  be  admitted  without  any  initiation  fee. 

There  are  some  countries  that  now  have  what  they  term  a  "treaty,"  which  pro- 
vides that  if  glassworkers  migrate  from  one  country  to  another,  through  official  per- 
mission from  the  organization  of  which  they  are  members,  their  card  is  recognized 
and  they  are  admitted  without  any  initiation  fee. 

RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED. 
WORKING  TIME. 

1 .  Working  time  in  a  week  shall  not  exceed  8  hours  a  day. 

2.  Night  work  should  be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  work  to  stop  from  10  o'clock  at 
night  until  4  o'clock  in  the  morning,  with  the  exception  of  such  as  attend  to  furnaces 
and  the  melting. 

3.  Sunday  work  shall  be  abolished.     Firemen  and  furnace  men  will  attend  to 
furnaces  when  employed  on  Sunday,  and  must,  during  the  week  following,  have  a 
rest  of  at  least  36  hours. 

4.  Intermission  for  meals  and  rest  during  working  time  of  10  hours  must  be  at  least 
2  hours,  and  during  a  working  time  of  8  hours  at  least  1  hour. 

5.  All  extra  work,  besides  the  usual  work,  must  be  omitted  during  regular  working 
time  as  well  as  after  it. 

INTERNATIONAL    REPORTS. 

In  order  to  get  reliable  information  regarding  the  momentary  condition  respecting 
employment  in  the  various  professional  branches  in  all  countries  and  concerning 
want  of  employment  in  the  various  branches,  and  also  concerning  the  current  wage 
and  working  questions  as  well  as  strikes  and  lockouts  and  their  causes,  the  congress 
thinks  it  useful  that  the  unions  affiliated  with  the  secretariat  should  send  reports  to 
the  secretariat  at  regular  intervals.  The  international  secretary  shall  be  obliged  to 
arrange  the  reports  and  publish  them  in  the  principal  languages. 

You  will  note  that  resolution  No.  7  will  work  in  harmony  to  some  degree  with  reso- 
lution No.  G.  This  resolution  was  intended  to  keep  the  international  glassworkers 
informed  concerning  trade  conditions  in  the  various  countries.  If  we  submit  our 
report  to  the  international  secretariat,  and  thereby  keep  him  in  touch  with  trade  con- 
ditions in  this  country,  it  will  have  a  tendency  to  prevent  glassworkers  immigrating 
when  trade  conditions  do  not  warrant  their  arrival. 


SCHEDULE   B.  723 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

FOREIGN   COMPETITION   AND   IMPORTED   GLASSWARES. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  during  the  discussion  on  international  affairs  at  the  conven- 
tion it  developed  that  in  several  countries,  Holland  and  Austria,  for  example,  glass- 
workers  work  20  per  cent  less  than  their  regular  working  rate  of  wages  on  wares  that 
are  to  be  exported  to  the  United  States,  I  offered  the  following  resolution,  which 
excited  quite  a  discussion  and  was  finally  adopted: 

IMPORTED   WARES — RESOLUTION. 

"The  enormous  amount  of  glasswares  exported  from  continental  Europe  has  caused 
the  American  glassworkers  to  suffer  many  sacrifices  and  has  been  responsible  for  many 
unjust  alterations  in  our  working  conditions  and  has  cost  the  American  Flint  Glass 
Workers'  Union  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  and  we  are  obliged  to  resist  the 
employers'  demands  for  higher  production  or  lower  wages  each  year,  their  demand 
being  based  entirely  on  'foreign  competition,'  and  our  Government  reports  show  that 
annually  $7,000,000  (28,000,000  marks,  35,000,000  francs,  35,000,000  lires)  worth  of 
glassware  reaches  our  shores  from  continental  Europe,  principally  from  Germany, 
Austria,  and  Bohemia. 

"This  im  potation  of  glasswares  has  thrown  many  of  our  workmen  into  idleness,  as 
our  official  reports  will  prove,  and  it  renders  it  difficult  for  us  to  maintain  our  present 
rate  of  wages  and  conditions,  and  we  therefore  appeal  to  the  continental  European 
workers  to  do  their  very  best  to  increase  their  wages,  shorten  their  hours  of  labor, 
abolish  child  and  home  labor,  and  improve  their  general  conditions,  and  above  all 
not  to  make  further  concessions  to  enable  employers  to  export  glasswares  to  the  United 
States. 

"We  beg  our  comrades  on  the  Continent  to  send  us  a  schedule  of  the  wages  paid  in 
all  localities  for  various  classes  of  glasswork,  the  hours  of  labor  each  day  and  week,  in 
order  that  we  can  intelligently  debate  this  important  point  with  American  employers." 

Delegate  Sassenbach  took  the  position  that  there  is  no  trade-union  in  Germany  that 
ever  made  a  concession  to  the  employers  to  export  their  goods  cheaper.  He  said: 
''Our  unions  do  their  best  to  improve  conditions  of  life.  I  give  this  explanation  in  the 
name  of  the  free  German  trade-unionists." 

I  called  their  attention  to  that  which  I  had  learned  from  Delegate  Baart,  of  Holland. 
One  of  the  Austrian  delegates  arose  on  the  floor  and  admitted  that  which  I  said  was  true, 
and  they  pledged  their  honor  to  exercise  their  best  efforts  to  equalize  the  wages  at 
home  on  all  goods  made  regardless  of  whether  or  not  it  is  for  export  purposes. 

GERMAN  GLASSWORKERS'  WAGES. 

I  desire  to  impress  the  fact  upon  the  minds  of  our  members  that  there  is  no  universal 
rate  of  wage  paid  the  glassworkers  in  Germany.  I  tried  to  ascertain  from  Secretary 
Girbig  the  prevailing  rate  of  wage,  and  he  said  he  did  not  know,  as  they  have  no  accu- 
rate way  of  learning,  because  their  membership  does  not  pay  assessments  on  their  earn- 
ings. They  are  taxed  so  much  per  week  per  member  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the 
organization. 

In  some  factories  the  men  are  paid  a  different  rate  of  wage  on  account  of  some  being 
favorites  or  better  workers.  Each  individual,  especially  those  who  are  favored,  guards 
his  earnings  with  the  utmost  secrecy  possible,  for  fear  his  interest  will  be  injured  by 
divulging  the  fact  to  his  fellow  worker.  On  this  account  he  was  unable  to  inform  me 
the  rate  of  wage  paid  in  the  various  departments,  except  in  a  general  way.  He  stated 
that  bottle  blowers  earn  about  5  marks  ($1.25)  a  day  on  a  piecework  basis,  and  that 
they  would  average  about  $25  a  month. 

Mr.  Girbig  stated  he  was  a  paste-mold  blower  and  that  he  made  large  paste-mold 
bowl-shape  electric  globes  piecework,  and  he  averaged  about  24  pieces  an  hour,  and 
received  2£  cents  each.  From  this  he  paid  the  gatherer  and  blocker  10  cents  each  an 
hour  and  paid  the  boy  on  the  shop  5  cents  an  hour.  The  shop  was  composed  of 
blower,  blocker,  gatherer,  and  one  boy. 

ENSLAVING   SYSTEM. 

The  German  manufacturers  have  in  vogue  the  most  exact  system  I  ever  witnessed 
to  keep  their  workmen  in  subjection.  It  is  so  firmly  established  that  it  will  undoubt- 
edly require  years  to  abolish  it,  unless  some  revolutionary  incident  occurs.  When 
this  system  is  described,  I  am  sure  you  can  realize  the  cunningness  by  which  the  em- 
ployer has  established  complete  control  over  the  workingmen,  and  the  difficulty  it 


724  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

will  be  for  the  German  glass  worker  to  release  himself,  unless  he  is  possessed  of  extraor- 
dinarily strong  qualifications. 

A  company  engages  a  man  that  we  term  a  "gaffer";  they  term  him  "manager." 
This  "manager"  is  boss  of  the  shop  and  does  the  blowing,  or  if  it  is  ware  made  by 
hand  he  is  the  gaffer  of  the  shop,  but  he  is  manager  of  that  shop  and  the  company 
holds  him  responsible  for  the  work  done  by  each  individual  on  the  shop,  for  their  con- 
duct in  the  factory,  and  out  of  the  factory,  and  their  strict  obedience  to  their  masters. 
The  company  fixes  the  rate  of  wage  they  will  pay  the  "manager,"  and  he  arranges 
with  his  blocker,  servitor,  gatherer,  and  boys  the  amount  that  he  will  pay  them. 
You  can  understand  that  under  this  system  it  is  the  company's  interest  to  get  a  gaffer, 
or  "manager,"  as  cheap  as  possible,  and  the  gaffer  tries  to  get  the  shop  as  cheap  as  he 
can  and  endeavors  to  get  as  much  work  out  of  them  as  possible  because  they  are  en- 
gaged on  the  unlimited  piecework  basis,  and  the  manager  of  the  shop  is  held  responsi- 
ble for  the  success  or  failure  of  his  shop. 

In  nearly  all  cases,  unless  the  servitor  or  gatherer  is  married,  the  gaffer  agrees  to  pay 
them  so  much  an  hour  while  working  for  him  and  agrees  to  board  them.  Even  small 
boys  whose  parents  reside  in  the  same  town  are  obliged  to  board  with  the  gaffer. 
This,  you  see,  gives  the  gaffer,  or  the  "manager, "  as  the  company  terms  him,  complete 
control  over  the  shop,  and  it  places  him  responsible  to  the  company  for  the  quantity 
and  quality  of  the  ware  produced,  and  the  general  conduct  of  the  men  on  his  shop. 

Another  significant  feature  connected  with  this  system  which  holds  the  German 
worker  in  subjection  and  keeps  his  condition  at  its  present  low  standard  in  the  glass 
trade  is  that  in  nearly  every  city  in  which  there  is  a  large  factory  the  company  owns 
the  houses  in  which  the  workers  live.  They  build  a  row  of  brick  housed  extending  for 
blocks  and  expect  the  workers  to  reside  in  them.  In  fact,  it  is  obligatory  to  live  there 
in  order  to  hold  a  position  with  the  company.  In  some  cases  the  employer  will  state, 
"We  do  not  force  them  to  live  in  the  company's  houses  if  they  do  not  wish  to  do  so," 
but  men  living  in  those  houses  who  disobey  factory  rules  or  render  themselves  ob- 
noxious to  the  company  in  any  way  are  dismissed  from  service  and  evicted  from  their 
homes  very  promptly.  This  ha?  a  terrorizing  effect  on  a  great  many,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  they  live  in  two  or  three  rooms  and  raise  a  large  family. 

At  Schreiberaii,  in  Saxony,  the  committeeman  informed  me  that  he  and  his  wife 
and  two  children  lived  in  one  small  room  and  a  kitchen,  and  paid  $2.50  a  month  rent. 

At  \Yeiswasser  the  workmen  pay  $2.50  a  month  for  two  rooms  and  a  kitchen,  and  the 
company  offers  to  sell  these  houses  to  those  who  desire  to  buy. 

At  Jena,  a?  a  rule,  the  workers  and  their  families  live  in  two  rooms,  sometimes  three, 
and  a  very  few  have  four  rooms.  In  some  towns  they  have  two  rooms  and  a  "cabin," 
as  they  term  it.  A  cabin  is  a  small  room  for  sleeping  purposes,  and  they  pay  from 
$3.50  to  $5  a  month  rent. 

Under  this  system  it  is  extraordinarily  difficult  for  the  workers  to  change  their  pres- 
ent condition.  As  a  matter  of  self-protection  and  self-interest  the  gaffer  holds  his  shop 
in  subjection.  In  that  manner  it  is  almost  impossible  for  these  men  to  get  relief,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  there  is  such  an  excellent  police  and  state  official  control.  You 
can  see  how  difficult  it  is  for  organized  labor  to  make  much  progress,  as  it  is  so 
difficult  to  get  matters  started  without  the  employer  of  the  shop  knowing  all  that  is 
transpiring.  It  is  on  account  of  that  serious  state  of  affairs  that  the  German  workers 
are  depending  so  largely  upon  political  action,  and  expect  to  accomplish  more  through 
legislation  than  through  the  trade-union  movement. 

A    VISIT   TO    WEINBOHLA,  GERMANY. 

Accompanied  by  Secretary  Girbig,  Comrade  George  Horn,  and  an  interpreter,  I 
visited  Weinbohla.  Here  they  have  two  large  tableware  factories;  they  also  make 
eomo  iron  mold  goods,  have  a  couple  of  semiautomatic  jar  machines,  similar  to  our 
Teeple-Johnson  machine.  The  quality  of  the  ware  produced  was  far  inferior  to  the 
pressed  wares  made  in  this  country,  the  glass  being  poor  and  worked  very  hard,  and 
the  ware  poorly  polished.  The  average  wage  of  the  presser  and  gatherer  is  $8  a  week. 
Very  few  earn  $10.  The  finisher  receives  25  cents  a  turn  more  than  the  presser  or 
gatherer. 

A  mass  meeting  of  glass  workers  and  their  families  was  held  in  this  city,  about  800 
people  attending.  The  meeting  was  addressed  in  German  by  Brothers  Girbig  and 
Horn. 

In  a  40-minute.  address  I  explained  our  conditions  and  our  interest  in  theirwelfare 
and  encouraged  iln-m  to  tight  for  improved  conditions.  The  meeting  was  a  very 
enthusiastic  gathering  and  keen  attention  was  paid  to  the  interpreter  explaining  my 
expressions.  This  \sa.s  a  grand  meeting. 


SCHEDULE   B.  725 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

SCHREIBEKAU,  SAXONY — FINE    WARES   MADE   AND   TERRIBLE   CONDITIONS. 

The  glass  factory  at  this  city,  as  well  as  a  hotel  and  miles  of  fine  land  surrounding 
the  factory,  is  owned  by  Count  Schalfgotsch.  It  was  exceedingly  interesting  to  visit 
this  place  and  see  the  fine  line  of  stem  wares,  vases,  and  that  class  of  goods  made  from 
crystal,  ruby,  blue,  and  green  colors.  In  some  cases  the  articles  were  made  by  crystal 
core  and  the  colors  covering  it,  the  patterns  cut  from  the  colors  to  the  crystal,  such  as 
you  often  see  in  fancy  cut  goblets  or  vases.  It  was  a  pleasure  to  watch  them  make  a 
fancy  goblet  in  this  manner:  One  man  would  gather  a  crystal  core,  make  a  crystal 
ball,  let  the  boy  hold  the  same,  then  make  a  ruby  core  and  gather  over  a  core  and 
make  a  ball,  then  stick  the  ruby-covered  ball  to  the  flint  ball,  release  it  from  the  pipe, 
warm  it  in,  shear  off  the  rough  edges  caused  by  cracking  it  off  the  pipe,  then  flare 
the  ruby-covered  ball  back  over  the  crystal  ball,  block  the  same,  then  blow  it  in  a 
wooden  mold.  While  the  gatherer  and  servitor  were  doing  this  work,  the  gaffer 
would  make  a  twist  leg  by  hand  and  block  it  in  a  tool,  then  stick  it  to  the  bowl,  cast  a 
foot  on  it,  stick  it  up,  warm  it  in,  shear  the  edge,  and  finish  the  article.  Their  fancy 
stem  ware  was  made  in  the  same  manner,  except  that  the  fancy  twist  leg  was  made 
by  a  tube  shop  and  cut  in  small  pieces,  and  pieces  needed  were  laid  on  the  breast 
wall  of  the  furnace,  stuck  up,  warmed  in,  and  drawn  out  in  its  proper  shape,  then 
stuck  to  the  bowl. 

A  very,  very  surprising  feature  connected  with  the  excellent  class  of  goods  made  by 
this  concern  was  the  awfully  low  wages  of  the  men.  Excellent  stem-ware  workers  and 
gaffers  making  fancy  vases,  jugs,  etc.,  were  working  60  hours  a  week  for  $7,  $8,  and  $9 
a  week.  The  man  who  did  gathering  and  serving  (they  only  use  two  men  on  the  shop) 
did  that  class  of  work  for  wages  averaging  from  $1.75  to  $2.50  a  week.  The  small 
boy  on  the  shop  received  from  $1  to  $1.50  a  week.  All  of  the  wages  were  paid  to  the 
gaffer,  or  "manager"  as  he  is  called,  and  he  pays  the  rest  of  the  shop  according  to  the 
best  arrangement  he  can  make  with  them.  Here  again  the  gatherer  and  servitor, 
and  the  small  boy  on  the  shop,  board  with  the  gaffer,  and  he  takes  a  certain  amount 
from  their  wages  to  pay  for  their  board. 

I  urged  upon  Secretary  Girbig,  who  accompanied  me,  to  explain  how  the  subordi- 
nate men  on  the  shop  had  anything  left  when  the  gaffer  got  through'  with  them,  and 
he  only  replied  that  it  was  a  pitkble  state  of  affairs  and  they  were  doing  their  best  to 
overcome  the  same. 

Glass  cutters  employed  at  this  factory  on  this  fine  class  of  work,  and  I  assure  you  it 
was  extraordinarily  nice  work,  earn  from  70  to  95  cents  a  day. 

ELEGANT  FACTORIES   AND   AWFUL  CONDITIONS   IN    WEISWASSER. 

This .  city  is  one  of  the  most,  if  not  the  most,  important  glass  centers  in  Germany, 
there  being  36  furnaces  in  operation,  and  three  idle.  There  are  800  union  men  and 
1,000  nonunion  men  employed.  The  secretary  told  me  that  in  the  district  of  Ober- 
lausits,  in  which  Weiswasser  is  located,  there  are  about  15,000  people  engaged  at  the 
glass-working  industry.  There  are  about  30,000  skilled  glass  workers  employed  in 
Germany,  not  including  the  bottle  or  window  glass  workers.  Including  Austria, 
Hungary,  and  Bohemia,  there  are  about  80,000  people  engaged  in  glass  making. 

At  this  city  12  furnaces  for  making  electric  bulbs  were  erected  in  the  past  eight  years. 
At  the  Neue  Oberlausitzer  Glashuettenwerke  Actiengesellschaft  they  have  eight  fur- 
naces running  on  electric  bulbs.  At  this  factory  the  men  are  paid  20  cents  per  100  for 
gathering,  blowing,  cracking  off,  and  cleaning  off  their  irons.  They  have  excellent 
facilities  for  the  men  at  this  place. 

This  company  has  one  of  the  most  magnificent  glass  factories  I  ever  saw.  The  com- 
pany is  bitterly  opposed  to  organized  labor,  consequently  it  is  difficult  to  make  much 
progress  toward  organizing  the  men  in  the  factory.  The  plant  is  growing  at  a  tremen- 
dous rate,  owing  to  the  great  increase  in  the  use  of  electric  bulbs  in  Germany. 

SYSTEM    OF   WORK,  WAGES,  AND   SELLING   PRICES. 

I  visited  the  Joseph  Schweig  Glass  Co.,  which  has  10  furnaces.  I  saw  them  making 
pressed  ware,  lamp  chimneys,  paste-mold  wares,  electric  bulbs,  globes,  and  stem  ware. 
At  one  furnace  there  wore' 60  bulb  blowers  gathering  and  blowing  then-  own  bulbs. 
On  the  small  size  bulb  they  made  from  600  to  800  a  day,  and  on  the  large  size  tungsten 
they  made  from  560  to  600  a  day,  and  received  25  cents  per  100  for  gathering,  blowmg, 
cracking  off,  cleaning  off  their  own  pipe.  Some  of  the  best  workmen  would  gather 
over  a  stem,  as  they  do  in  bottle  houses,  making  a  certain  class  of  bottles;  that  is,  they 
would  leave  a  small  stem  on  the  end  of  their  pipe  and  would  gather  several  times  over 
that  stem  and  marver  and  blow  a  bulb  before  they  would  clean  off  their  iron.  They 
made  their  bulbs  in  a  wooden  mold. 


726  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PAEAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE. 

In  conversation  with  a  bulb  blower,  he  stated  that  the  very  best  they  could  possibly 
do,  working  60  hours  a  week,  was  to  earn  from  $10  to  $12.  They  asserted  that  when 
trade  is  dull,  the  employer  tells  them  not  to  work  fast  and  not  to  produce  too  great  a 
number.  They  work  slow  and  make  about  $1  a  day. 

IMPORT  AND   SHADE   INFORMATION. 

I  watched  them  make  a  10-inch  Welsbach  shade  blown  in  a  wooden  mold,  one  end 
finished  on  an  iron.  Three  men  and  one  boy  would  make  33  dozen  in  nine  hours' 
time,  and  the  men  and  company  told  me  that  this  article  sold  at  wholesale  prices  1  mark 
and  30  pfennig,  or  31  cents  a  dozen.  I  watched  them  make  a  12-inch  dome  with  a 
10-inch  fitter,  Paris  top,  six  men  on  a  shop  making  55  dozen  a  day.  In  another  shop 
I  saw  four  men  and  one  boy  making  38  dozen  a  day  (28  cm.)  or  11  inches  wide.  These 
articles  were  blown  in  a  wooden  mold  with  the  top  down  and  the  top  opened  up  and 
finished ;  the  bottom  was  cracked  off  and  glazed  behind  the  lehr.  These  articles  sold 
at  wholesale  price  for  2  marks  (48  cents)  a  dozen.  I  exerted  great  care  to  ascertain 
absolutely  the  prices  of  these  shades,  as  you  surely  can  not  forget  that  we  have  con- 
tinually felt  that  the  appraised  values  of  these  shades  in  the  New  York  customhouse 
were  wrong.  I  found  that  shades  from  10  to  12  inch  size  sold  all  the  way  from  32  to 
48  cents  a  dozen  in  Germany. 

Shades  made  at  this  factory  for  export  purposes  are  made  15  per  cent  less  in  wages 
than  those  for  domestic  purposes.  In  conversation  with  Mr.  Schweig^  I  learned  that 
they  own  an  extra  large  pottery  works  and  25  per  cent  of  its  production  is  exported. 
When  I  talked  to  him  of  the  low  selling  prices  on  shades  he  declared  that  both  the 
company  and  workers  were  dissatisfied  with  the  condition  of  affairs,  but  their  export 
trade  was  essential  to  keep  their  factory  steadily  operating. 

Mr.  Joseph  Schweig,  who  recently  toured  this  country,  personally  conducted  me 
through  the  factory.  He  speaks  the  English  language  clearly  and  acted  very  urbanely 
to  me.  He  explained  the  reason  for  his  courteousness  was  due  to  the  fact  that  he  was 
treated  very  kindly  by  the  Americans  during  his  recent  trip  to  this  country.  When  I 
asked  him  about  the  production  of  any  article  or  the  wages,  if  he  was  in  doubt,  he  would 
call  the  foreman  or  a  workman  from  the  platform  and  have  him  answer  any  question  I 
asked  regarding  wages  and  production.  When  I  asked  him  about  the  selling  price  he 
took  me  into  the  office  and  he  phoned  to  their  selling  department  in  order  to  get  the 
exact  rates. 

The  factories  in  Weiswasser,  Germany,  are  undoubtedly  the  most  modern  glass 
factories  in  the  world  so  far  as  factory  construction  is  concerned.  The  Government 
has  passed  a  law  requiring  the  roofs  to  be  a  certain  height,  proper  ventilation,  etc., 
and  all  the  factories  now  being  erected  are  conforming  to  the  law. 

In  the  Schweig  factory  in  a  number  of  departments  they  have  revolving  electric 
fans  placed  above  the  heads  of  the  workers,  fans  similar  to  those  used  at  American 
cafes. 

The  furnaces  were  down-draft  furnaces  and  artificial  gas  made  from  coal  pressed 
in  cakes  was  used.  The  buildings  were  made  of  pressed  yellow  brick,  with  high  stacks. 
The  cracking  off  and  glazing  machines  were  of  the  latest  type. 

The  Schweig  company  employs  GOO  glass  workers  and  about  1,500  people  in  all 
departments. 

VISIT   TO    HIRSCH    FACTORY. 

I  also  visited  the  Hirsch  factory,  a  concern  that  operates  two  furnaces  making  paste 
mold  chimneys,  globes,  a  few  chemical  wares,  and  shades. 

A  shade  shop  making  a  10-inch  shade,  with  an  8-inch  fitter,  made  from  25  to  30 
dozen  a  day.  The  shop  was  composed  of  three  men  and  one  boy,  and  the  total  shop 
wages  vary  from  $23  to  $25  a  week.  I  watched  them  make  16-inch  shallow  opal 
round  and  square  top  shades,  and  they  make  12  do/en  a  day  of  nine  hours.  On  this 
job  the  shop  was  paid  from  i?23  to  *27  a  week,  and  the  wages  per  week  distributed  in 
the  following  manner: 

Gaffer $12.  00 

Servitor 6.  00 

Gatherer $4.  00-4.  50 

Boy 2.  00-3.  00 

In  a  conversation  with  one  of  the  blowers  he  said  that  his  wages  ran  from  $7  to  $10 
a  week,  and  if  he  could  average  $7.50  a  week  the  year  around  he  would  be  happy. 
He  stated  that  he  has  six  children  and  last  year  he  made  a  very  poor  year.  The  com- 
pany would  not  allow  him  to  work  fast  because  business  was  dull  and  he  didn't  want 


SCHEDULE  B.  727 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

to  lay  off.  During  the  year  he  made  788  marks,  or  about  $195.  To  use  his- exact 
language  he  declared: 

"We  would  have  starved  only  for  the  fact  that  I  got  a  job  selling  beer  for  a  brewery, 
working  after  I  was  done  each  day  at  the  glass  factory.  I  got  a  commission  selling 
beer  at  night." 

This  man  informed  me  that  he  paid  180  marks,  $45  a  year,  or  $3.75  a  month,  rent 
for  two  rooms  and  a  cabin.  He  blows  paste  mold  weiss  beers,  paste  mold  chimneys, 
and  that  class  of  goods.  He  further  stated  that  on  Friday,  September  22,  he  made 
heavy  bottom  weiss  beers  and  after  he  paid  his  shop  the  amount  due  them  for  nine 
hours'  work  he  had  left  1  mark  50  pfennig,  or  about  37  cents.  I  asked  him  the  cause, 
and  he  said  the  glass  was  bad,  due  to  bad  color;  it  had  turned  green  and  the  workmen 
are  paid  only  for  wares  packed  and  shipped.  They  are  held  responsible  for  every- 
thing. He  said  they  were  perfectly  satisfied  if  their  loss  did  not  exceed  20  per  cent. 

Another  nice-looking  and  well-dressed  worker  to  whom  I  talked,  and  who  accom- 
panied us  to  the  depot,  said  he  earned  from  25  to  30  marks  a  week  of  60  hours,  and  he 
would  be  satisfied  if  he  could  earn  28  marks,  or  $7  a  week. 

Weiswaser — Comparison  in  the  cost  of  production. 

16-inch  shallow  opal  shade,  one  end  finished: 
Their  wages  per  day — 

Gaffer $2. 00 

Servitor 1. 00 

Gatherer 75 

Boy 50 

4.25 


Our  wages  per  day — 

Gaffer 6. 00 

Servitor 4. 50 

Gatherer 3. 00 

Boys 3. 00 

16.50 


Their  production,  12  dozen 

Our  production  per  day,  pieces,  new  process 124 

Cost  per  dozen $0.  35 

Our  cost  per  dozen 1.  60 

10-inch  dome  shade,  one  end  finished: 

Their  wages $4.  25 

Our  wages $15.  50 

Their  production,  pieces 

Our  production,  pieces 

Cost  per  dozen $0. 17 

Our  cost  per  dozen $0.  62 

10-inch  Welsbach,  one  end  finished: 

Their  wages $4-  25 

Our  wages $15-  50 

Their  production,  33  dozen 

Our  production,  pieces 

Cost  per  dozen 

Cost  per  dozen $0-  62 

Paste-mold  cost  of  production : 

Blower *6-  0° 

Blocker 

Gatherer 3.00 

Boys 2-°° 

16.00 

Sixteen-inch,  move  double  88,  166  pieces  per  day.     Cost  per  dozen,  $1.16. 
Ten-inch,  move  125  double,  250  single,  500  pieces  per  day.    Cost  per  dozen,  38  cents. 


728  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

New  York  importers'  quotations  per  dozen  on  paste-mold  shades. 


Fenster  <fe 
Rune  Co. 

Kirch- 
berger  &  Co. 

10-inch  ring-top  dome,  opal,  6-dozen  case  

SI.  27 

$1.30 

10-inch  bell-top  dome  opal  6-dozen  case  .                        .                 

1.42 

1.40 

10-inch  Welsbach  dome,  opal,  9-dozen  case  

1.07 

1.10 

FENSTER  &  RUHE,  F.  O.  B.  NEW  YORK  OR  PHILADELPHIA. 

10-inch  ring-top  dome,  less  discount  for  box $1.11 

10-inch  bell-top  dome,  less  discount  for  box 1. 24 

Kirchberger  &  Co.,  New  York,  f.  o.  b.  New  York  or  Philadelphia,  net  30  days,  2 
per  cent  off  if  paid  in  10  days. 

ESTIMATE   OF   OUR   COST   OP   PRODUCTION. 

It  is  careiully  estimated  that  the  No.  10  Welsbach,  10-inch  diameter,  4-inch  deep, 
167  molds  full,  including  all  shop  labor,  cracking  off,  grinding,  packing,  boxing,  etc., 
but  not  including  fixed  charges  for  selling,  discounts,  etc.,  costs  at  least  $1.03  a  dozen. 
It  is  further  estimated  that  the  loss  attached  in  handling  this  ware  between  the  time  of 
selection  and  selling  runs  from  15  to  20  per  cent.  "» 

The  total  cost  of  the  10-inch  ring-top  dome,  10-inch  diameter,  5-inch  high,  move  125 
double.  16-ounce  weight,  including  expenses  of  all  kinds,  $1.20  a  dozen. 

The  total  cost  of  the  10-inch  bell-top  dome,  10-inch  diameter,  5|-inch  deep,  17  to 
18-ounce  weight,  move  115  double,  $1.28  per  dozen. 


This  city  is  located  close  to  Weiswasser  and  has  five  factories.  One  factory  making 
electric  bulbs  employs  250  men.  At  another  factory  they  make  a  general  line  of  blown 
ware.  The  bulb  blowers'  wages  for  60  hours  a  week  run  from  $10  to  $12.  When  trade 
is  dull  they  likewise  work  slow.  The  blowers  gather  and  blow  their  own  glass  and 
make  about  §1  a  day. 

The  wages  of  the  shade  shops  average,  for  the  gaffer  $15,  servitor  $6,  gatherer  $4.25, 
one  boy  $3,  for  a  week  of  54  hours. 

MAKING    STEM    WARE    AND    CHIMNEYS    IN    GERMANY. 

I  watched  some  excellent  stem-ware  makers  in  Germany  making  various  lines  of 
paste-mold  stem  ware.  Of  a  goblet  they  make  400  a  day,  of  a  champagne  400,  a  claret 
600.  The  gaffer  would  earn  from  S2  to  $2.50  a  day,  blower  $1.25  to  $1.50  a  day,  and 
gatherer  si  a  day.  The  boys'  wages  were  from  30  cents  to  50  cents  a  day.  On  hand- 
made wares  the  men  were  making  200  goblets,  250  tall  champagnes,  200  to  225  on 
large  saucer-shaped  champagnes,  350  clarets,  350  to  400  cognac  brandies,  at  the  wages 
quoted  above.  These  were  light  stem-ware  articles  and  not  the  heavy  ware  for 
cutting. 

FRANCE    AND    BELGIUM    PASTE-MOLD    CHIMNEYS. 

On  paste-mold  chimneys,  such  as  Rochesters,  Electrics,  Belgium  headlights,  and 
that  class  of  goods,  they  worked  under  a  peculiar  system.  At  some  factories  they  do 
not  have  a  regularly  constructed  shop.  Perhaps  three  or  four  men  will  work  in  one 
mold;  they  gather  and  blow  their  own  glass,  with  a  boy  to  hold  the  mold,  or  work  a 
dummy,  and  have  a  cleaniiig-off  boy  and  a  carrying-in  boy,  and  in  that  manner 
they  help  to  keep  some  of  the  spare  men  at  work  around  the  factory.  If  they  do  not 
need  any  of  these  men  working  on  a  paste-mold  chimney  shop  in  this  manner  they 
can  take  them  from  one  shop  and  put  them  in  another  in  order  to  keep  them  at  work. 
Men  will  gather  and  blow  their  own  chimneys  onan  unlimited  piece  work  basis,  under 
the  description  given  above,  at  wages  from  $1.25  to  $1.50  a  day,  the  cost  of  production 
being  extremely  low. 


SCHEDULE   B.  729 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Comparison  of  the  cost  of  raw  ingredients  for  making  glass. 

UNITED   STATES. 

Sand:  Quality  No.  1  at  mine,  $2  a  ton;  quality  No.  2  at  mine,  $1.15  to  $1.25  a  ton; 
McVeightown,  ra.,  or  dull  sand,  $2  a  ton;  Berkeley,  W.  Va.,  $1.75  to  $2  a  ton;  freight 
rate  on  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio,  $1.20  a  ton;  freight  rate  on  Pennsylvania  Railroad, 
$1.25  a  ton;  in  Pittsburgh  district  No.  2  sand  totals,  $2.50  a  ton;  Michigan,  first 
quality,  $2.50  a  ton. 

Lime:  At  mine,  $3.40  a  ton;  freight  rate,  11  cents  per  100. 

Soda:  58  per  cent  quality,  $18  a  ton. 

Lead:  No.  1  lead,  present  time,  not  including  freight,  7  cents  a  pound. 

Coal:  According  to  the  quality  and  distance  it  is  hauled. 

GERMANY. 

The  German  manufacturer  enjoys  no  advantage  over  the  American  manufacturer 
in  the  cost  of  raw  materials  and  fuel  for  making  glass. 

Soda  costs  $20  a  ton;  sand  costs  from  $1.40  to  $1.75  a  ton  at  the  mine;  coal  coats  from 
$1.25  to  $3  a  ton,  and  other  materials  in  an  equal  comparison  with  prices  prevailing 
in  this  country. 

INFORMATION    ON   IMPORTED   WARE. 

I  found  it  rather  difficult  to  secure  information  regarding  the  local  selling  price 
on  wares,  as  the  wholesale  dealers  viewed  with  alarm  the  inquiries  made  by  English- 
speaking  people.  They  seemed  to  guard  their  business  affairs  with  the  greatest  care. 

The  jobbers,  manufacturers,  and  some  of  the  workmen  felt  that  it  is  necessary  to 
hive  export  trade  in  order  to  keep  the  German  manufacturers  busily  engaged,  and 
:  ne  of  them  expressed  indignation  concerning  the  "red  tape"  attached  to  our 
custom  laws.  In  discussing  this  subject  with  Delegate  Sassenbach,  he  declared, 
"We  must  have  export  trade  in  order  to  keep  our  factories  going." 

He  seemed  to  think  that  the  Germans  must  have  work  regardless  of  their  low  wages 
and  its  injurious  effect  upon  the  general  labor  movement,  and  he  expressed  the  thought 
that  even  though  we  suffered  by  competition  from  imported  wares,  each  country  should 
handle  matters  of  that  kind  in  some  sort  of  a  protective  manner. 

The  delegates  from  the  various  countries  did  not  seem  to  be  able  to  tell  anything 
regarding  the  selling  price  of  glasswares,  the  cost  of  sand,  coal,  lime,  soda,  lead,  etc. 
They  stated  that  they  were  kept  in  complete  ignorance  on  matters  of  this  kind. 

It  seems  that  rivalry  among  the  manufacturers  sets  up  an  unsatisfactory  state  of 
affairs,  and  recently  they  held  a  meeting  and  formed  an  organization.  They  elected 
Mr.  H.  Burger  secretary,  and  established  an  office  at  Bischofswerker,  Saxony,  Ger- 
many, and  me  employers  agreed  to  establish  a  minimum  selling  price  on  their  goods, 
but  like  some  American  manufacturers,  some  of  them  violated  the  selling  price 
agreement,  internal  dissension  arose,  and  the  organization  dissolved.  Competition 
now  reigns  as  heretofore. 

Several  of  the  prominent  employers  complained  of  our  high  tariff  laws,  particularly 
the  McKinley  tariff.  They  asserted  that  their  export  trade  to  this  country  had  been 
materially  reduced  since  that  law  went  into  effect. 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  it  is  to  the  best  interest  of  the  American  glassworker 
that  a  high  tariff  on  glasswares  be  maintained  to  protect  ourselves  from  the  low  wages, 
long  hours,  and  inhuman  industrial  conditions  prevailing  across  the  sea. 


Comrade  Girbig  wrote  this  company  (Glasfabrik  Sophienhuette,  Richard  Bach, 
superintendent)  for  permission  for  me  to  visit  their  factory,  but  he  declined  to  grant 
the  privilege,  stating  that  it  would  not  be  good  judgment  on  their  part  to  allow  any 
American  to  visit  their  plant.  This  was  one  of  the  chemical-ware  factories  that  I 
desired  to  see  in  operation,  so  I  notified  Secretary  Henry  Miller  that  I  intended  to 
visit  there  and  make  an  effort  to  get  in,  and  requested  him  to  arrange  to  have  an 
interpreter  for  me.  He  informed  me  that  there  were  few  English-speaking  people 
there,  and  they  first  secured  the  services  of  a  professor  in  one  of  the  colleges,  but  when 
he  learned  that  I  was  a  representative  of  organized  labor  from  America  he  declined  to 


730  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-9S— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

act  as  interpreter.  They  then  selected  a  salesman,  and  when  he  learned  that  I  was 
an  American  representing  organized  labor  he  also  refused  to  act,  saying  it  would  not 
be  discreet  for  him  to  assist  me  in  my  efforts.  I  was  therefore  obliged  to  take  an 
interpreter  from  Berlin. 

Ilmenau  is  a  small  city  of  about  25,000  people.  There  are  about  200  union  glass- 
workers  in  the  city  and  700  in  that  district.  There  are  11  furnaces  in  that  district  in 
operation,  6  of  these  making  a  specialty  of  chemical  wares,  the  greatest  part  of  which 
is  exported  to  England  and  America. 

GEHLBERG   LOCATION. 

Gehlberg  is  located  close  to  Ilmenau,  across  the  country  drive.  I  did  not  take  the 
time  to  go  there,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  men  work  the  same  system  as  those  en- 
gaged in  Ilmenau. 

The  men  work  at  very  low  wages,  long  hours,  unlimited,  and  piecework. 

Beakers  were  blown  in  a  paste  mold,  sent  through  the  lehr,  cracked  off  by  ma- 
chinery, like  cracking  off  a  tumbler  or  chimney,  and  then  carried  back  into  the 
factory,  warmed  in  a  cup  snap  and  finished  by  a  finisher  for  13  cents  a  hundred  for 
8  and  10  ounce  sizes.  The  finisher  informed  me  that  he  could  finish  1,200  and  1,300 
a  day. 

I  have  illustrated  catalogues  with  selling  prices  and  discounts  from  this  locality, 
which  I  will  place  in  your  hands. 

SCHOTT    &   GENO88EN,   JENA — THURINGIAN  STATES,   SAXONY. 

When  visiting  this  factory  I  was  especially  favored  by  Dr.  Schott,  who  personally 
conducted  me  through  the  entire  plant,  and  seemed  very  anxious  to  give  me  all  the 
information  I  desired.  He  spoke  English  fluently  and  was  not  at  all  backward  in 
giving  me  illustrated  catalogues,  selling  prices,  wages  paid  to  the  men,  production 
on  the  different  class  of  work,  etc.  He  further  gave  permission  to  the  paste  mold  and 
caster  place  workers  to  visit  me  at  the  hotel  and  give  me  all  the  information  I  wished 
concerning  their  system  and  cost  of  production.  He  arranged  for  me  to  visit  the 
famous  Carl  Zeiss  laboratory  and  presented  me  with  a  history  of  the  origin  of  the 
Zeiss  and  Schott  Glass  Works. 

Schott  &  Co.'s  factory  is  one  of  the  most  famous  glass  factories  in  the  world,  and 
its  paste  mold,  shade,  chimney,  and  optical  wares  almost  flood  the  world.  They 
have  10  furnaces  exclusively  making  gas  chimneys  paste  mold,  and  2  furnaces  on  opal 
paste  mold  shades,  6  to  8  furnaces  on  tubing,  and  2  furnaces  on  chemical  wares.  Their 
furnaces  are  only  5-pot  furnaces,  except  thoee  at  which  they  make  optical  goods, 
where  they  have  only  one  pot  in  the  furnace.  This  will  be  described  later  in  my 
report. 

This  company  is  now  erecting  a  large  continuous  tank  for  the  purpose  of  making 
ordinary  gas  chimneys  and  air-hole  globes. 

PASTE  MOLD  SHADES  BLOWN  DOUBLE  AT  SCHOTT  &  CO.'s  FAMOUS  GLASSWORKS  IN  JENA. 

Sizes  20  centimeters  or  8  inches  long,  rate  of  production  per  hour,  110  for  70  double 
or  140  pieces,  the  total  shop  cost  is  1  mark  96  pfennig,  or  46  cents. 

Size  25  centimeters  or  10  inches,  rate  per  hour  double  100,  or  200  pieces.  For  60 
double  or  120  pieces  they  receive  1  mark  96  pfennig,  or  46  cents. 

Size  30  centimeters,  12  inches,  rate  per  hour  90  double.  180  pieces,  50  double,  or 
100  pieces,  they  receive  46  cents. 

The  shop  was  composed  of  one  ball  maker,  two  blowers,  and  one  small  carrying-in 
boy.  The  blowers  held  the  mold  with  their  feet.  These  shades  were  made  extremely 
light,  in  fact  the  lightest  shades  I  ever  saw  blown  in  a  mold.  The  very  small  boy 
who  gathered  the  ball  on  this  shop  wore  knee  trousers,  and  seemed  to  be  extremely 
young.  I  doubt  if  any  of  these  boys  were  over  11  years  of  age.  They  would  gather 
the  ball  and  make  and  hang  it  up  on  a  rack  on  the  side  of  the  furnace;  the  blower 
would  walk  to  the  rack,  get  the  ball,  cover  it,  block  and  blow  it,  and  crack  it  off  on 
a  stand .  The  pipes  the  gathering  boys  used  had  wooden  handles.  The  speed  at  which 
these  men  worked  was  simply  marvelous. 

Another  very  important  point  in  connection  with  the  making  of  shades  at  this  fac- 
tory is  that  all  small  shades,  such  as  7  inches  and  smaller  that  are  crimped,  are  generally 
blown  double  in  the  yaste  mold,  cracked  off,  and  marked  behind  the  leer. 


SCHEDULE  B. 


731 


PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Comparison  of  systems,  production,  and  cost  of  production. 


Article. 

Jena,  Germany. 

United  States. 

Number  blown  at 
one  tune. 

Single 
pieces 
produced 
per  day. 

Total 
shop  cost 
per  100. 

Our 
move 
double. 

Single 
pieoei 

produced 
per  day. 

Our  cost 
per  100. 

Chimney: 
6-inch  gas  

Quadruple 

3,600 
2,800 
5,000 
2,000 

1,800 
1,500 

5,100 
3,600 

Centt. 

9 

12 

25 

25 
33 

10 
13J 

400 
340 
325 
325 

325 
300 

1,600 
1,360 
1,300 
1,300 

1,300 
1,200 

$0.87 
1.00 
1.08 
1.08 

1.00 
1.08} 

8-inch  gas  

do  

Air-hole  gas  globe,  4  inches  
Q  globe  

6  at  a  time  

Double  

Paste-mold  shades: 
6  inches  diameter,  3  inches 
deep  

do  

7  inches  diameter,  3  inches 
deep  

do  

Air-hole  gas  chimneys: 
5,  6,  7  inches  

Quadruple  

8  inches  

do  

JETA   CHEMICAL  WARES. 

I  have  illustrated  catalogues  of  the  Jena  Glass  Co.  on  chemical  wares  and  chimneys, 
with  estimate  of  the  numbers  produced  on  the  unlimited  piecework  system,  and  wages 
paid  on  the  various  articles,  which  I  will  place  in  the  hands  of  the  committee  who  have 
this  matter  in  charge  in  order  that  they  can  familiarize  themselves  on  the  subject  and 
offer  such  recommendations  as  they  deem  necessary. 

The  most  important  feature  connected  with  that  which  I  witnessed  is  the  fact  that 
all  their  beakers  and  a  large  number  of  beaker  flasks  are  blown  in  the  paste  mold, 
cracked  off  the  pipe,  sent  through  the  leer,  cracked  off  behind  the  leer,  and  glazed 
on  the  edge,  and  if  necessary  to  be  finished  in  a  different  shape  they  were  finished 
behind  the  leer  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  method  now  used  in  glazing  blown 
tumblers,  except  for  the  beakers  they  use  a  Upper  shaped  like  the  ring  used  on  a 
finished  pressed  lip  article.  Their  work  was  very  nicely  done.  I  saw  beakers  and 
flasks  up  to  1-gallon  size  finished  in  this  manner. 

MAKING   OPTICAL   GLASS. 

In  making  optical  glass  they  use  a  small  open-top  pot.  When  the  glass  is  melted, 
a  mechanical  stirrer  is  inserted  in  the  top  of  the  pot  and  the  glass  stirred  for  hours 
until  all  the  cords  and  blisters  are  removed.  The  pot  is  then  removed  from  the 
furnace  and  allowed  to  stand  for  a  period  of  four  to  six  weeks,  when  the  pot  is  broken 
and  the  glass  removed  in  large  lumps  and  selected  preparatory  to  being  sawed  in 
pieces  and  ground  to  the  proper  degree. 

UNSKILLED   WORKMEN'S   WAGES   AT  JENA. 

The  unskilled  men  employed  at  this  factory  earn  from  19  to  25  marks  a  week;  that 
is,  from  $4.75  to  $6.25.  The  highest  wage  paid  to  any  unskilled  man  in  that  factory 
is  $6.25  a  week,  but  not  until  a  man  has  been  employed  by  that  concern  for  a  period 
of  12  years.  The  unskilled  men  behind  the  lehr  cracking  off  shades  and  chimneys, 
crimping  shades,  finishing  beakers,  and  that  class  of  goods,  who  are  working  on  piece- 
work basis,  are  not  allowed  to  exceed  30  marks  a  week — that  is  $7.50 — and  they  very, 
very  seldom  reach  that  amount.  Carrying-in  boys  at  the  factory  earn  $2.50  a  week_ 

THEIR   HOMES. 

Glassworkers  employed  at  the  Jena  plant  generally  live  in  two  rooms,  a  small  num- 
ber have  three,  and  a  very  small  number  four.  The  third  or  fourth  room  at  any  of 
these  homes  is  called  a  "cabin,"  which  is  simply  a  sleeping  room.  For  these  homes 
the  men  pay  180  to  200  marks,  $45  to  $50,  a  year  rent. 

HOURS   OF   WORK. 

They  have  no  regular  hours  of  work  except  that  the  week  commences  Monday  morn- 
ing at  2  o'clock.  Each  crew  of  men  has  a  certain  number  of  boys.  When  the  men 
start  to  work  on  Monday  morning  at  2  they  continue  at  work,  except  to  stop  for 
lunch,  until  they  have  worked  out  the  glass  in  the  pot.  All  articles,  you  will  under- 
stand, are  produced  on  an  unlimited  piece-work  basis.  When  the  pots  are  worked 
out,  the  men  are  through  for  the  day  and  they  are  permitted  to  go  home.  _  But  all 
the  small  boys  at  the  factory  are  obliged  to  sleep  in  the  factory,  where  there  is  a  large 


732  TARIFF    HEADINGS. 

• 
PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

dormitory,  with  iron  beds  in  tiers  of  one  to  three  berths.  In  connection  with  the 
dormitory  is  a  bath  room  and  dining  room,  where  food  is  supplied  at  exact  cost. 

Immediately  after  the  pots  are  worked  out  they  are  filled  in,  and  when  the  glass 
is  again  ready  to  be  worked  a  large  bell  is  rung  in  the  dormitory,  which  arouses  the 
boys,  and  they  are  obliged  to  get  up  and  go  out  to  call  the  shop  for  whom  they  work. 
After  calling  the  men  they  report  to  the  dining-room  to  get  their  breakfast  and  then 
report  for  work.  Every  morning  in  the  week  after  Monday  the  men  begin  work 
any  time  from  1  a.  m.  to  3  a.  m.  according  to  the  time  required  in  melting  the  glass, 
and  they  continue  at  work  until  the  glass  is  completely  worked  out. 

I  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  visiting  the  dormitory  and  saw  the  beds,  bathrooms, 
dining-room,  and  everything  seemed  to  be  kept  in  a  very  sanitary  manner. 

This  system  of  work  amazed  me,  as  I  realized  the  great  disadvantage  in  which  it 
placed  the  men  and  their  families,  but  in  conversation  with  the  men  I  found  they 
did  not  mind  it.  The  system  prevailed  so  long  that  they  considered  it  perfectly 
satisfactory,  as  it  enabled  them  to  spend  their  afternoons  around  the  city  and  the 
early  evening  at  home. 

There  is  only  one  shift  at  this  factory,  that  which  they  term  "day  shift."  I  ques- 
tioned the  men  about  how  they  equalized  affairs,  as  I  concluded  shops  making  heavy 
ware  would  work  out  the  glass  quicker  than  shops  making  light  ware.  They  asserted 
that  a  greater  number  of  shops  making  light  ware  were  put  in  one  pot  and  they  worked 
faster,  and  in  that  manner  nearly  all  of  the  shops  engaged  at  that  factory  finished  their 
day's  work  at  about  the  same  time. 

You  will  please  understand  that  when  the  men  finish  their  work  Monday  morn- 
ing, or  at  noon  time,  as  the  case  may  be,  they  do  not  know  exactly  what  hour  they 
will  commence  on  Tuesday  morning,  as  that  depends  solely  upon  the  time  required 
to  melt  the  glass.  Yet  that  part  was  quite  well  arranged  and  seemed  to  work  satis- 
factorily to  all. 

Three-fourths  of  the  men  employed  at  this  plant — about  350 — are  members  of  the 
union,  and  one-fourth  are  nonmembers.  The  total  number  of  people  employed  by 
this  firm  on  April  1,  1910,  was  1,175. 

COST    OF    LIVING    IN    BERLIN. 

Beef  for  boiling per  pound . .  $0.  20  -$0.  25 

Rump  steak  with  bones do. ... 

Rump  steak  without  bones do 

Mutton do 25  - 

Veal,  according  to  cut do 25  - 

Pork do 25  - 

Eggs,  according  to  season apiece. .       .  02$- 

Eggs,  second  quality do Ol|j- 

This  means  that  eggs  sell  for  30  cents  to  60  cents  a  dozen. 

Potatoes,  according  to  quality per  bushel . .       .  48-  1.  56 

Coffee * per  pound . .       .  30-    .  50 

and  higher. 

Tea do 50-  1.  25 

Sugar do 05-    .07 

Butter  (summer) do .26 

Butter  (winter). do .35 

Milk quart..       .05-     .06 

Bread,  4-pound  loaf .12 

HORSE    AND    DOG    MEAT   AND    HUMOROUS    COMPARISON. 

There  is  no  secrecy  regarding  the  fact  that  horse  meat  is  eaten  to  some  extent,  and  it 
sells  from  10  to  12  cents  a  pound.  A  number  of  butcher  shops  advertise  horseflesh  for 
sale.  According  to  official  figures  it  is  stated  that  187.000  horses  were  slaughtered 
during  the  year  1908  for  eating  purposes,  and  lately  people  are  consuming  dog,  as  they 
seem  to  have  a  peculiar  fancy  that  dog  flesh  is  good  food  for  certain  ailments.  In  the 
official  report  for  Chemnitz,"  for  the  year  1908,  580  dogs  were  killed,  and  during  1909, 
597,  and  1,157  horses. 

It  is  said  that  butter  is  a  rare  thing  in  the  homes  of  many  of  the  poor  people.  Of  sub- 
stitutes for  it,  there  is  no  end .  The  most  important  is  known  as  butter  oil,  which  is  sold 
at  16  to  18  cents  per  pound.  There  is  also  a  great  variety  of  margarines  sold  in  the 
poorer  districts. 

As  a  substitute  for  coffee,  a  mixture  of  coffee  and  chicory  is  used  and  sells  for  20  to  25 
cents  a  pound. 


SCHEDULE   B. 
PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 


733 


QUARTERLY  REPORT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  FLINT  GLASS  WORKERS'  UNION  OF  MEMBERS 
EMPLOYED  AND  UNEMPLOYED  FOR  THE  THREE  MONTHS  SEPT.  1-Nov.  30,  1912. 

Statement  showing  the  number  of  members  of  each  department  in  each  local  union,  total 
membership,  number  of  employed  and  unemployed,  as  far  as  reported. 


Location. 

1 

"3 
o 

1 

Chimney. 

£ 

3 

PQ 

Punch  tumbler  and 
stem  ware. 

Mold  making. 

Paste  mold. 

<B 

! 

u 

Iron  mold. 

Machine  jar  and  bottle. 

Shade  and  globe. 

Kngravers. 

Insulators. 

Stopper  grinders. 

Total  membership. 

Total  employed. 

Total  unemployed. 

Brooklyn  

12 

52 

10 

50 

26 

10 

36 

196 

178 

18 

Alexandria  

216 

?n 

?1 

1 

6 

264 

22s 

36 

Pittsburgh  

2 

120 

4 

126 

100 

26 

do.   

35 

35 

35 

Marion  

43 

4 

3 

50 

50 

Millville  

4? 

42 

42 

Steubenville  

4 

152 

3 

IS 

q 

6 

11 

240 

215 

25 

Wheeling  

Mi 

110 

7 

7 

210 

164 

46 

Moundsville  

53 

70 

10 

8 

3 

144 

137 

7 

East  St.  Louis  

7 

7 

7 

Zanesville  

15 

15 

15 

Bellaire  

164 

3 

167 

148 

19 

Niles  

?4o 

245 

245 

Martins  Ferry.  ;  

9 

40 

6 

5 

3 

63 

53 

10 

New  MartinsVille  

1 

37 

4 

? 

44 

44 

New  Bedford  

13 

v\ 

36 

32 

4 

Corona  

3 

n 

16 

16 

Toledo  

3 

58 

4 

65 

64 

1 

Pittsburgh  

34 

34 

31 

3 

Williamstown  

15 

34 

4 

5 

58 

56 

? 

Muncie  

? 

la 

44 

35 

9 

Montreal,  Quebec  . 

18 

58 

18 

4 

4 

4 

i 

110 

110 

Rochester  

11 

5? 

10 

48 

121 

121 

Star  Citv  

60 

?4 

84 

82 

1 

Industrial  

12 

12 

12 

Toledo  

116 

11 

3 

130 

118 

1? 

Marion  

38 

q 

47 

36 

11 

Newark 

3 

12} 

33 

1 

160 

147 

13 

Fostoria  

15 

50 

1 

1Q 

64 

3 

176 

155 

*>1 

Sanduskv  

?6 

26 

26 

Shirley  

Bellaire  

27 

3 

13 

? 

13 

79 

58 

?1 

Marion  

31 

1 

32 

32 

Monaca   . 

(i 

6 

q 

47 

2 

99 

io 

102 

70 

3? 

Cincinnati  

3 

3? 

35 

35 

Beaver  Falls 

29 

fi 

q 

s 

3 

1 

1 

57 

52 

5 

Weston... 

40 

1 

S 

4 

53 

47 

6 

Charleroi 

Millersburg  

Vineland 

64 

64 

62 

? 

Toronto,  Ontario. 

] 

18 

? 

3 

24 

24 

Millville 

34 

41 

75 

67 

8 

Point  Marion  

3 

4 

7 

3 

4 

Brackenridge 

4fi 

? 

1 

49 

41 

8 

Fairmont 

9 

167 

in 

7 

4 

302 

276 

?6 

El  wood 

23 

1 

24 

?4 

Kokomo 

i9 

- 

3i 

61 

56 

5 

Swissyale 

16 

•> 

17 

99 

IS 

75 

67 

8 

Wheeling  ... 

44 

44 

42 

?, 

Brilliant 

•^ 

6 

s 

12 

12 

Washington  

49 

16 

in 

3 

1 

85 

78 

7 

Brackenridge 

15 

15 

15 

Philadelphia 

12 

12 

10 

? 

Wheeling 

25 

3 

28 

23 

5 

Moundsville 

•J4 

q 

4 

1 

38 

38 

Lancaster 

12 

4 

16 

i'S 

60 

60 

35 

35 

34 

1 

Toledo     . 

2J 

21 

i" 

2 

Meriden 

47 

("i 

53 

53 

Philadelphia 

-3 

23 

64 

iq 

°7 

47 

253 

176 

77 

6 

61 

60 

1 

IS 

18 

17 

1 

47 

47 

47 

447 

1 

448 

440 

8 

21 

21 

W 

1 

Toronto,  Ontario... 

4.') 

i 

.-, 

51 

49 

2 

734 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Statement  showing  the  number  of  members  of  each  department  in  each  local  union,  total 
membership,  number  of  employed  and  unemployed,  as  far  as  reported — Continued. 


No.  local  union. 

Location. 

"3 

t> 

i* 

PH 

Chimney. 

XJ 

"3 
« 

Punch  tumbler  and 
stem  ware. 

Mold  making. 

Paste  mold. 

<c 

fe 

1 
t> 

Iron  mold. 

Machine  jar  and  bottle. 

1 

M 
•» 

9 
• 

02 

Engravers. 

Insulators. 

Stopper  grinders. 

Total  membership. 

Total  employed. 

Total  unemployed. 

71 
72 
73 

74 
77 

7s 

7'J 

Ml 

81 

82 
83 
84 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
li.I 
103 
L04 
L05 
106 
107 
108 
109 
lUi 
11] 
112 
L13 
i!; 
116 
117 
119 
12 
126 
127 
13fi 
137 

4 

19 

96 

8 

2 

B 

41 

96 
156 
150 
132 
94 
26 
46 
462 
20 
31 
30 
252 
8 

37 
91 
145 
150 
131 
92 
24 
46 
462 
18 
28 
25 
231 

4 
5 
11 
.... 

2 
2 

""2 
3 
5 
21 

8 

"i 

25 
3 

""2 
"26 

'"2 
2 

"2 

"is 

12 

4 
2 
1 
39 
4 

North  Vernon    . 

2 
113 

128 

1 

25 

11 

4 

22 

6 
91 

6 

1?0 

8 

26 

Coraopolis  

y 

2 

5 

12 

i« 

17 

3 

Toledo 

446 

16 

4 

Toledo 

29 

f 

Philadelphia 

30 

Jeannette       

35 

162 

9 
7 

•>s 

4 

1? 

K 

3 

Tuba                  

1 

61 

61 
17 
44 
225 
30 
110 
41 
55 
21 
60 
19 
6 
117 
15 
35 
14 
141 
48 
17 
56 
104 
98 
225 
18 
55 
8 
36 
74 
39 
53 
39 

61 
17 
43 

200 
27 
110 
41 
53 
21 
40 
19 
4 
115 
15 
33 
14 
123 
48 
17 
56 
92 
98 
225 
18 
55 
8 
36 
70 
37 
52 

Cambridge      .       .   . 

4 

• 

11 

VI 

1 

22.5 

10 

29 

4 

Honesdale              .   . 

Elrnira  Heights 

30 

Corning  

no 

Morgantown  
Steuhenville.   .. 

5 
14 

31 
23 

3 

2 

9 
1 

(i 

T 

Buckhannon  

20 

Hawlev 

60 

Philadelphia.. 

19 

Tiflin 

(i 

Grapevine  

20 
15 

65 

11 

?1 

Ottawa,  Ontario 

35 

St.  Charles  . 

14 

Dunkirk'  

126 

f) 

6 

Bridgeport,  W.  Va.  . 

48 

Minneapolis  

17 

Cincinnati  

56 

Jeannette 

8 

52 

12 

13 

14 

Chicago 

98 

New  Bedford  

195 

77 

3 

Lansing. 

18 

New  York  Citv  

. 

Elgin  

8"" 

South  Connellsville  . 
Somerville  

30  1 

6 

74 

Wel'.sburg 

fi 

24 

9 

Lancaster 

41          2 
14 

:-i 

5     2 

Rochester  

24 

1 

Cumberland  
Total  

Orand  total.  .. 

2        12 

4S        5 

G 

6. 

79 

75 

637;     356 

102 

122 
644 

46 

24 

74 
514 

6-5 

2 

14 

28 

67 

46 

3 

1,473 

1,365 

108 

2,011  2.045  1  1,053    767 

593 

476 

393 

60 

136 

14 

8,819 

8.010 

809 

SCHEDULE  B. 
PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 


735 


SECRETARY'S  QUARTERLY  STATEMENT  FOR  THE  QUARTER  ENDING  SEPT.  30,  1912, 
GLASS  BOTTLE  BLOWERS'  ASSOCIATION  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  CANADA. 

Statistical. 


•g 
|St 

1 

2 
3 
5 

fi 
7 
8 
9 
10 
12 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
31 
36 
37 
38 
42 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
52 
54 
55 
60 
61 
63 
64 
66 
72 
73 
75 
76 
78 
83 
85 
91 
92 
93 
95 
101 
102 
106 
109 
110 
113 
115 
120 
122 
123 

Location. 

Number  of 
factories. 

Operating. 

£ 
•o 

Journey  men 
employed. 

Apprent  Ices 
employed. 

Total  working 
force. 

a 

• 

B  . 
>*s 
|2 

§ 

!-» 

Apprent  ices 
idle. 

Total  mem- 
bership. 

Pittsburgh,  Pa  

3 
6 
5 
1 
9 
18 
11 
9 
3 
1 
4 
3 
2 
8 
5 
2 
1 
6 
3 
5 
8 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
5 
5 
1 
1 
1 
1 

2 
4 

1 

1 
2 
4" 
1 
6 
8 
5 
1 
2 

82 

220 
2 

2 

84 
220 
2 

30 
225 
220 
153 
118 
25 
337 
59 
84 
2 
68 
45 
3 
138 
24 
9 
5 
20 
33 
100 
72 
5 
2 

112 
445 
*>80 
153 
210 
438 
561 
309 
102 
42 
68 
212 
76 
138 
113 
72 
58 
230 
33 
122 
72 
77 
82 
24 
23 
47 
27 
29 
137 
95 
83 
27 
25 
48 
50 
13 
63 
48 
38 
313 
182 
175 
9 
99 
47 
94 
24 
81 
89 
89 
21 
35 
61 
94 
89 
120 
54 
50 
61 
111 
43 
22 
59 
39 
94 

Alton,  111  

114 

Streator,  111  

St.  1  A)  11  is,  Mo  

26 
32 
5 
15 

1 
7 

Salem,  N.  J  

3 

10 
6 
8 

1 
1 

02 
413 
189 
240 
18 
27 

R 
4" 
46 
40 
6 
1 

100 
458 
235 
280 
24 
28 

Millville,  N.  J  

Bridgeton,  N.  J  

Baltimore.  Md  

Royersfora.  Pa  

Muncie,  Ind    .         

Woodburv,  N.  J..     . 

4 

6 

Milwaukee,  Wis  

3 
1 

167 
66 

15 
6 

182 
72 

Ravenswood,Long  Island,  N.Y. 
Massillon,  Ohio  

1 

8 
2 

7 
3 

Montreal,  Canada  

3 

2 
1 
6 

89 
52 
53 
210 

9 
9 

7 
8 

98 
61 
60 
218 

Zanesville,  Ohio       

Richmond,  Va  

San  Francisco.  Cal  

12 

Belleville,  111  

3 

5 

8 

Newark,  Ohio 

Clayton,  N.  J  

18 

Rochester,  N.Y  

2 
1 
1 
1 
1 

72 
75 
24 
8 
47 
27 
29 
114 

14 
13 
6 
2 

6 

86 
88 
30 
10 
53 
27 
33 
121 

Reading,  Ohio  

Brockwayville,  Pa  

Hawley.  Pa        

1 

15 

1 

Spring  City,  Pa 

Cofleyville,  Kaiis  

1 

3 

Lancaster,  NY                   . 

1 

2 

4 

7 

Marion,  Ind  .    

1 

5 
3 

75 
41 
7 
1 
48 
1 
13 
40 
8 

15 
5 
2 

Olean,  N.Y               

2 
1 

1 

42 
20 
24 

8 

4 
3 

50 
24 
27 

Allentown,  Pa  

Parkersburg,  W.  Va    

Sheffield  Pa 

1 

7 

Wilcox,  Pa                       

1 

46 

2 

48 

12 

Brooklyn.  NY            

2 
1 
1 

8 
1 
5 
1 
3 
1 
1 
2 
8 
3 
2 
1 
1 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 

2 

Medford  N  J 

1 
1 

4 
1 
5 

40 
30 

200 
66 
93 

8 
6 
44 

6 
17 

48 
36 
244 
72 
110 

McDonald,  Pa 

Terre  Haute,  Ind  

4 

113 
116 
67 
9 
53 
3 
2 

64 
32 
5 
4 
9 
1 
2 

Gas  City,  Ind            

1 
2 

1 
1 
1 
1 
5 
1 
2 

44 
44 
88 
22 

73 
81 
72 

2 
5 
12 
6 
8 
13 
3 

46 
49 
100 
28 
81 
94 
75 

Smethport,  Pa     

1 
3 
2 

Sharpsburg,  Pa  

3 

7 
13 
21 
3 

2 

East  St  Louis  111 

Butler  Pa 

1 
4 
1 

Kane   Pa 

1 

1 
3 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 

32 
61 
77 
70 
106 
42 
39 
61 
92 
33 
20 
47 
30 
89 

1 
9 
14 
9 
18 
6 
12 
7 
16 
14 
4 

6 
6 

33 
70 
91 
79 
124 
48 
51 
68 
108 
47 
24 
54 
36 
95 

Alton  Park  Tenn 

1 

17 
16 
4 
12 
11 

4 

1 

1 

Columbus  Ohio       

7 

Cape  May  Courthouse.  X.  J  — 

18 
7 
2 
7 
9 
5 

10 

Shingle  House,  Pa  

1 

3 

Greensburg,  Pa  

Total        

203 

110 

93 

4,100 

530 

4.630     2,544 

440 

6,937 

736 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

ADDITIONAL  DATA  FURNISHED  BY  MR.  T.  W.  ROWE,  OF  THE  AMERICAN  FLINT  GLASS 

WORKERS'  UNION 


AMERICAN  FLINT  GLASS  WORKERS'  UNION, 

P -    Toledo,  Ohio,  January  11,  1913. 

Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD,  M.  C., 

Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  In  addition  to  the  statements  I  made  before  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  and  the  brief  on  file  at  the  hearing  accorded  me  Wednesday,  January  8,  I 
desire  to  submit  the  following,  with  the  hope  that  it  will  be  made  a  matter  of  record, 
in  order  that  our  opposition  to  any  reduction  in  tariff  will  be  clearly  understood. 

Regarding  the  "Average  wage,"  I  quote  herewith  an  extract  from  the  annual  report 
of  our  national  secretary,  Wm.  P.  Clarke,  as  found  on  page  99,  and  statistics  on  "Em- 
ployed and  unemployed,"  as  found  on  page  101  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Montreal, 
Quebec,  1912  convention,  a  copy  of  which  I  send  you  under  separate  cover. 

AVERAGE  WAGE. 

"  In  1895  Secretary  Kunzler  reported  to  our  Toledo  convention  that  the  general 
average  earnings  of  7,300  members  equaled  $8.12  a  week,  for  52  weeks  in  the  year,  or 
a  total  of  $422.24  earned  by  each  member  during  the  entire  year. 

"In  1910  the  writer  reported  that  8,901  members  had  earned  on  an  average  of  $10.65 
a  week,  for  52  weeks  in  the  year,  or  a  total  of  $553.80  each.  These  figures  showed  an 
increase  of  31  per  cent  over  those  reported  by  Secretary  Kunzler  15  years  previous. 

"To-day  we  have  the  pleasure  of  reporting  that  an  average  of  9,002  members  during 
the  past  year,  earned  on  an  average  of  $12.42  a  week,  for  52  weeks  in  the  year,  or  a  total 
of  $645.60  each.  This  being  an  increase  of  17  per  cent  over  that  reported  two  years 
ago;  or,  if  you  return  to  the  figures  of  1895,  and  make  a  comparison  with  the  figures 
herein  presented  for  the  past  year,  you  will  discover  that  the  earnings  of  our  members 
have  increased  53  per  cent  in  the  past  17  years.  However,  as  a  matter  of  justice,  I 
must  state  that  the  year  of  1895  contains  one  of  the  darkest  pages  in  the  history  of  our 
organization.'' 

Employed  and  unemployed. 


Member- 
ship. 

Employed. 

Unem- 
ployed. 

Percent        p«"*nt 
employ*.       ^ 

Cutting 

1,860 

1,613 

247 

0.  87  '               0  13 

Press             

1,929 

1,727 

202 

.  90  :                 .10 

Chimnev 

1,  150 

788 

362 

.09  '                   31 

Bulb                                    

S04 

794 

10 

.99                    .01 

Punch  tumbler  ami  si  em  ware 

M  ,9 

5S2 

X7 

.87  '                   13 

Mound  making  ..     ..        

5X4 

582 

22 

.96                    .04 

Paste  mold 

514 

441 

73 

.86                     14 

Caster  place  

441 

409 

32 

.93                    .07 

Iron  mold 

354 

•>s,s 

66 

M                      19 

Machine  jar  and  boille  

170 

167 

9 

.95                    .05 

Shade  and  j;lobe 

145 

110 

35 

76                     24 

Engraving 

62 

53 

9 

86                     14 

Insulator  .  . 

41 

11 

Stopper  erinder.  .  . 

14 

14 

8,743 


1,154 


.13 


On  account  of  the  reduced  tariff  tinder  the  Wilson  bill,  our  members  were  obliged  to 
double  their  day's  work  without  any  increase  in  wages  on  duplex  globes.  In  the 
blown  department  and  stem-ware  department,  where  they  make  wines,  cocktails, 
Cordials,  goblet?,  and  that  class  of  goods,  our  members  suffered  a  20  percent  reduction 
in  wages,  removed  the  limit  from  their  day's  production,  and  adopted  an  unlimited 
piece-work  basis. 

On  numerous  occasions  we  have  increased  our  day's  work  on  dome,  cone,  and  flat 
shades  made  in  opal,  <_rreen,  and  white  plated.  Notwithstanding  this,  many  shades  are 
beitiir  imported  ai  the  present  time.  \Ve  understand  that  the  Welsbach  Light  Co. 
if  Gloucester,  \.  .1 ..  briim  them  to  this  country  by  the  shipload,  and  that  old  reliable 
concerns  operating  in  Philadelphia.  Pa.,  just  across  the  river  from  theWelsbach  Light 
Co..  arc  unable  to  meci  this  evil  competition. 


SCHEDULE   B.  737 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Two  years  ago  our  members  increased  their  day's  production  as  high  as  40  per 
cent  on  what  is  known  as  chemical  wares,  such  as  beakers,  flask  beakers,  and  other 
wares  used  in  hospitals  and  laboratories.  And  they  removed  the  limit  from  their 
production  so  that  they  could  work  on  a  nonrestrictive  basis  with  the  hope  of  com- 
peting with  the  imported  article.  Notwithstanding  this  great  change  and  sacrifice 
made  by  our  members,  the  foreign  manufacturer  exports  wares  to  this  country. 

I  respectfully  direct  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  new  McAlpine  Hotel, 
Thirty-fourth  and  Broaaway,  New  York  City,  was  supplied  with  $30,000  worth  of 
imported  bar  wares  supplied  through  the  Wannemaker  &  Co.  The  ware  was  produced 
by  the  Val  St.  Lambert  Co.,  Val  St.  Lambert  in  Belgium. 

Another  very  important  feature  connected  with  this  affair  is  that  we  understand 
that  all  the  glass  wares  used  in  the  United  States  Navy  Department  on  battleships 
are  of  foreign  make.  In  addition  to  this,  the  Hudson  River  boats  are  furnished  with 
foreign-made  goods.  We  understand  they  come  in  duty  free  because  they  are  used 
on  navigable  steamers.  Yet  this  is  a  grave  injustice  to  the  American  manufacturer 
and  the  American  worker. 

A  significant  feature  connected  with  the  importation  of  chemical  wares  and  wares 
used  in  hospitals  and  laboratories  for  experimental  purposes  is,  as  we  understand  it, 
that  the  wares  are  admitted  free.  When  a  jobber  calls  at  a  hospital  or  laboratory  for 
an  order,  an  order  is  given  for  a  certain  class  of  goods,  and  they  tell  the  jobber  to 
double  or  triple  the  order;  but  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  party  ordering  to  take 
the  ware  unless  they  really  want  it.  The  ware  can  be  stocked  by  the  importer  and 
the  order  thus  signed  by  the  party  ordering  some  ware  is  shown  as  evidence  to  the 
custom  officials  in  New  York  and  elsewhere  as  a  bona  fide  order,  and  when  the  ware 
is  secured,  only  one-third,  or  one-half  of  it,  is  delivered,  and  the  balance  is  used  in 
open  competition  with  the  product  of  the  American  manufacturer.  This  report  was 
submitted  to  me  by  one  who  made  an  extensive  investigation  of  the  matter,  and  we 
believe  that  something  should  be  done  to  prevent  deceptive  practices  of  this  kind. 

In  my  statement  before  your  committee  on  Wednesday,  January  8,  I  mentioned 
electric  bulbs.  I  would  like  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  mean  electric  bulbs  with 
or  without  filament,  that  is,  sent  here  to  be  fitted  with  carbons  or  filaments,  or  sent 
here  complete,  as  competition  between  American  manufacturers  and  workers  on 
this  line  of  goods  is  extremely  keen,  due  solely  to  the  very  low  wages  under  which 
bulbs  are  produced  in  Continental  Europe.  Even  with  our  60  per  cent  duty  I  under- 
stand that  10,000,000  bulbs  arrived  on  our  shores  last  year. 

The  wages  of  the  electric  bulb  blower  are  low  at  the  present  time,  and  only  recently 
we  succeeded  in  securing  an  increase  in  wages  for  the  gatherer  from  $2.80  to  $3  a  day. 
If  the  tariff  is  changed  on  this  line  of  goods,  it  will  certainly  effect  the  interests  of 
our  men  and  probably  cause  some  great  sacrifice  to  be  made  by  the  members  of  our 
organization. 

We  understand  that  the  Treasury  Department  has  transferred  incandescent  lamps 
from  paragraph  98,  Schedule  B,  known  as  "Glass  schedule,"  to  the  metal  schedule. 
We  sincerely  believe  that  these  articles  should  be  restored  to  the  glass  schedule  specifi- 
cally and  placed  with  blown  glassware  which  includes  electric  bulbs,  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  largest  proportion  of  the  labor  cost,  or  materials  used  in  incandescent 
lamps,  is  composed  of  glass.  We  trust  your  committee  will  not  be  misled  by  this 
transfer,  as  any  change  made  on  electric  bulbs  under  the  metal  schedule  would  be  a 
grave  injustice  to  the  members  of  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  and  the 
employers  who  are  exercising  their  best  efforts  to  cooperate  with  us  in  a  harmonious 
degree  consistent  with  the  keen  competition  prevailing  at  the  present  time. 

You  will  note  by  the  statistics  given  that  while  the  season  1911-12  was  one  of  the 
very  best  seasons,  over  13  per  cent  of  our  men  were  unemployed,  and  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  find  employment  for  these  men  in  the  trade,  owing  to  the  fact  that  there  is 
not  sufficient  work  for  them. 

I  am  sure  that  if  the  tariff  on  imported  glassware  is  reduced  that  the  present  serious 
competitive  state  will  be  intensified  and  a  great  number  of  our  members  thrown  out  of 
employment. 

In  behalf  of  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  I  respectfully  request  that 
your  committee  do  not  reduce  the  tariff  on  blown  glassware. 

Please  convey  to  the  members  of  your  committee  my  sincere  gratitude  for  extending 
the  time  of  your  session  in  order  to  allow  me  to  present  our  protest. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

T.  W.  HOWE, 
President,  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union. 

78959°— VOL  1- 


738  TABIPF  HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

AMERICAN  FLINT  GLASS  WORKERS'  UNION, 

Toledo,  Ohio,  January  SO,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD,  M.  C., 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  In  connection  with  the  tariff  revision  on  glassware  I  desire  to  add 
the  following  to  that  which  has  been  submitted,  on  behalf  of  the  American  Flint  Glass 
Workers'  Union,  and  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  presentation  of  the  following  facts  will 
not  consume  too  much  of  your  time  or  trespass  upon  your  patience.  Owing  to  the  fact 
that  the  question  of  imported  glassware  is  extremely  serious  to  us,  we  have  concluded 
that  it  is  advisable  to  present  all  possible  sides  to  you  on  the  subject,  with  the  hope 
that  judicious  legislation  will  follow. 

The  American  flint  glass  trade  is  in  a  rather  precarious  condition  to-day,  due  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  organization  among  the  employers  to  regulate  prices,  and  competi- 
tion is  extremely  intensified  on  account  of  a  lack  of  unity  and  the  competitive  rivalry 
and  the  fact  that  the  present  tariff  rates  do  not  furnish  adequate  protection  from  im- 
ported articles,  our  country  is  flooded  with  wares  from  abroad,  particularly  continental 
Europe. 

The  wages  prevailing  at  glass  factories  in  continental  Europe  are  from  one-third  to 
one-fourth  the  prevailing  rate  in  this  country.  German  glass  factories  are  finely  con- 
structed and  all  the  necessary  facilities  are  supplied  in  order  that  quality  and  quantity 
can  be  produced,  and  this  fact  with  the  low  wages  and  long  hours  prevailing,  enables 
them  to  ship  goods  to  this  country,  even  though  we  have  a  high  tariff  rate  on  certain 
lines. 

Our  principal  competition  in  Germany  is  from  the  factories  at  Jena,  Gehlberg, 
Ilmenau,  Weiswasser,  and  Prague.  The  principal  competition  in  Belgium  comes  from 
Val  St.  Lambert  Glass  Co.,  with  factories  at  Val  St.  Lambert  and  Namur,  and  goods 
produced  by  this  concern  can  be  found  in  almost  any  principal  city  in  this  country,  and 
we  agaiu  remind  you  of  the  fact  that  the  new  McAlpin  Hotel,  New  York  City,  recently 
opened,  was  supplied  with  $30,000  worth  of  fine  stemware,  such  as  cordials,  wines, 
goblets,  and  other  barware  utensils.  All  supplied  by  the  Val.  St.  Lambert  Co.  The 
principal  competition  in  France  is  from  Baccarac.  This  concern  ships  blanks  for 
cutting  and  cut  glass. 

We  ask  you  to  remember  that  the  glassware  used  on  naval  vessels  and  on  the  Hudson 
River  steamboat  lines  is  imported  ware,  and  another  significant  fact  that  should  require 
your  attention  is  that  all  the  syphon  bottles  used  in  the  United  States  are  imported 
articles,  and  the  firm  that  formerly  made  this  class  of  goods,  Thill  &  Co.,  Brooklyn, 
X.  Y.,  passed  out  of  existence,  due  to  the  competition  in  this  line  of  ware.  It  is  con- 
eervately  estimated  that  there  are  sufficient  syphon  bottles  used  in  the  various  cities  of 
this  country  to  keep  three  large  furnaces  in  operation  and  several  attempts  have  been 
made  to  meet  this  competition  and  on  each  occasion  they  have  proved  failures. 

Last  year  we  understand  there  were  10.000,000  incandescent  electric  bulbs  shipped 
into  this  country  from  Germany  and  Austria,  and  we  now  understand  that  the  importers 
are  trying  to  have  the  finished  incandescent  lamp,  which  is  governed  at  present  by  the 
metal  schedule  tariff,  reduced  from  45  to  10  per  cent.  We  certainly  consider  this  one 
of  the  deceptive  acts  resorted  to  by  the  importers,  as  we  know  that  the  principal  cost  in 
finishing  an  electric  incandescent  lamp  is  in  the  glass-working  department.  The  con- 
cern that  made  this  request  has  its  factory  in  Holland  where  the  glass  blowers  do  not 
ever  get  tor  regular  work  more  than  one-fourth  or  one-third  of  the  wages  paid  here,  and 
the  living  conditions  of  the  workers  are  very  poor.  On  top  of  this  these  Holland  glass 
workers  get  20  per  cent  deducted  from  their  regular  wages  when  the  goods  they  make 
are  for  export  to  this  country.  (See  the  extracts  from  my  report  on  labor  conditions  in 
Europe,  which  1  filed  with  you  when  I  appeared  before  you  on  January  8.  It  is 
printed  on  page  —  of  your  hearings  on  the  glass  schedule.  That  investigation  was 
not  made  for  your  committee,  but  was  made  by  our  union  for  it  to  know  what  competi- 
tion it  was  meeting,  and  is  the  most  complete  collection  of  actual  facts  about  glass 
workers  that  there  is.)  If  there  are  any  serious  changes  regarding  the  tariff  rates  on 
incandescent  lamp  bulbs  with  or  without  filaments,  the  members  of  our  union  will 
seriously  suffer  on  that  account,  and  instead  of  reducing  the  tariff  on  the  incandescent 
lamp  bulb  with  filaments,  we  believe  and  urgently  advise  that  incandescent  lamp 
bulbs  with  filaments  be  taken  from  the  metal  schedule  and  be  placed  on  the  blown 
glassware  schedule,  which  provides  for  a  60  per  cent  duty,  as  there  is  no  doubt  in  our 
niinds  as  to  that,  being  its  proper  place,  and  we  hope  that  you  will  not  overlook  that  very 
important  point.  It  would  lie  like  giving  us  something  with  one  hand  and  taking  it 
away  with  the  other  to  give  us  protection  on  bulbs  and  then  follow  the  request  of  these 
Holland  importers  to  lower  the  duly  on  the  lamps  which  is  the  only  article  for  which 
the  bulbs  can  be  used. 


SCHEDULE  B.  739 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

In  connection  with  the  terrific  competition  prevailing  in  this  country  we  desire 
to  state  that  if  you  simply  visit  a  few  of  the  large  glass  dealers  or  the  5  and  10  cent 
stores  of  the  principal  cities  of  our  country,  you  can  not  help  but  observe  that  glass 
is  sold  extremely  low,  and  on  account  of  the  low  prices  prevailing  a  number  of  flint 
glass  factories  have  been  forced  to  retire  in  recent  years.  Chiefly  among  these  are 
J.  J.  Murray  Co.,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  an  old-time  manufacturer,  manufacturing 
shades  and  globes;  a  concern  that  thoroughly  understood  the  business  and  had  an 
excellent  crew  of  men.  Welsbach  Light  Co.,  Gloucester,  N.  J.,  are  importing  shades 
by  the  shipload  and  laying  them  down  in  Philadelphia  cheaper  than  they  could  be 
produced  in  Philadelphia. 

A  number  of  workmen  left  the  J.  J.  Murray  Co.  and  started  a  cooperative  glass 
factory  at  Addison,  N.  Y.,  but  they  lasted  only  a  short  period  when  they  had  to  give 
ii  up.  Later,  another  crew  of  experienced  men  started  the  old  Boston-Sandwich 
Glass  Co.,  Sandwich,  Mass.,  and  lasted  only  about  a  year  when  they  were  compelled 
to  retire. 

Among  the  recent  failures  are:  Brpnx-Ryal  Glass  Co.,  Port  Jervis,  N.  Y.;  Solar 
Glass  Co.,  Owensboro,  Ky.;  Cheat  River  Glass  Co.,  Point  Marion,  Pa.;  The  Crystal 
Tumbler  Co.,  Morgantown,  W.  Va.;  C.  M.  Rodefer  Co.,  Shadyside,  Ohio;  Ohio  Flint 
Glass  Co.,  Lancaster,  Ohio;  Eyansville  Glass  Co.,  Evansville,  Ind.;  Millersburg  Glass 
Co.,  Millersburg,  Ohio;  Continental  Glass  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Pioneer  Glass  Co., 
Coffeyville,  Kans.;  Bartlesville, Glass  Co.,  Bartlesville,  Ohio;  and  I  may  add  that 
the  idle  Ohio  Flint  Glass  Co.'s  factory  at  Lancaster,  Ohio,  and  the  idle  Evansville 
Glass  Co.'s  factory  at  Evansville,  Ind.,  each  cost  about  $700,000  to  erect  and  equip, 
and  are  considered  two  of  the  best  constructed  glass  factories  in  this  country. 

I  again  desire  to  remind  you  that  the  average  wage  of  the  American  flint-glass 
worker  is  less  than  $14  a  week  for  the  year,  and  that  there  are  no  glass  manufacturers 
in  this  country  declaring  any  large  dividends.  It  is  estimated  that  the  average 
dividend  will  not  exceed  4  per  cent. 

If  the  tariff  is  reduced  on  any  of  the  illuminating  lines  of  glassware,  such  as  incan- 
descent electric  bulbs,  with  or  without  filaments,  lamp  chimneys,  electric  shades  or 
globes,  or  lamp  shades  or  street  lights,  blanks  for  cutting  or  cut  glass,  stemware,  such 
as  cordials,  wines,  goblets,  and  other  barware  goods,  it  will  play  serious  havoc  with 
the  American  industry  and  the  present  deplorable  competitive  condition  will  un- 
doubtedly do  the  American  flint-glass  weaker  a  grave  injustice,  because  of  our  experi- 
ence has  proven  that  when  such  competition  reigns  supreme  and  the  employer  can 
no  longer  profit  by  his  business,  that  concessions  are  always  demanded  and  generally 
granted  where  the  facts  are  self-evident,  as  it  will  certainly  be  proven  in  this  case. 
If  any  tariff  changes  are  to  be  made  they  should  be  made  on  the  very  commonest 
line  of  glassware,  and  should  not  be  made  on  the  higher  grades. 

Please  do  not  forget  that  the  past  year  was  considered  a  good  season,  as  far  as  the 
quantity  of  production  was  concerned,  and  during  that  period  14  per  cent  of  our 
members  were  idle  and  vainly  sought  work. 

Therefore,  on  behalf  of  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union  of  the  United 
States,  we  must  respectfully  beseech  your  committee  to  not  reduce  the  tariff  on 
pressed  or  blown  glassware,  or  on  goods  made  and  known  or  recognized  in  the  general 
glass-working  trade  as  flint  glassware  or  blown  glassware,  and  the  goods  which  we 
have  enumerated  in  our  protest. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  T.  W.  ROWE, 

President  American  Flint  Glass  Workers'  Union. 

STATEMENT  OF  WILLIAM  F.  DORFLINGER,  REPRESENTING  THE 
AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  FLINT  AND  LIME  GLASS  MANU- 
FACTURERS. 

PARAGRAPH  98. 

The  CHAIBMAX.  Mr.  Dorflinger,  to  what  paragraph  will  you  refer  ? 

Mr.  DORFLIXGER,  To  paragraph  98.  The  paragraph  that  covers 
the  articles  about  which  you  asked  a  few  moments  ago.  I  represent 
the  manufacturers  of  the  glass.  We  are  also  glass  cutters,  etchers, 
engravers,  and,  in  fact,  all  those  things  which  are  enumerated  in 
that  paragraph. 


740  TABIFF  HBAEINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

I  would  like  to  give  you  a  few  facts,  if  you  will  bear  with  me;  not 
figures.  I  want  to  tell  you  some  things  I  do  not  believe  you  hear 
about  or  know  about.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  absolutely  no 
question  that  the  fine  glass — the  tableware  which  is  made  hi  this 
country,  whether  plain  or  cut  or  etched,  is  the  finest  that  is  made  in 
the  world.  There  is  no  question  about  it.  The  reason  for  this  is 
t.iat  we  have  the  best  sand  that  is  knowi  to  the  world.  It  is  a 
matter  of  record  that  the  sand  for  the  English  exhibit  hi  Paris,  I 
think  hi  1868,  was  brought  over  from  America.  We  take  prizes 
everywhere — at  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  at  the  Centennial  in  Paris,  and 
everywhere — first  prize  for  glassware.  Under  those  circumstances 
you  would  think  there  would  be  no  trouble  hi  selling  it  here,  but 
that  did  not  seem  to  count.  It  is  the  price  that  counts.  One  of  the 
reasons  why  we  co  not  sell  more  of  it  is  beacuse  the  dealers  prefer 
imported  ware;  and  why?  Because  they  make  more  money  on  it. 
They  buy  cheaper  than  they  can  buy  domestic  ware  and  they  get  a 
bigger  price  tha  .  they  could  get  for  the  domestic  ware.  Conse- 
quently, they  boom  it  and  push  it.  You  can  go  into  any  store  in 
New  York  or  Philadelphia  and  ask  them  which  is  the  best  glass  they 
have,  and  they  say  "English,"  and  the  next  best  is  Swedish.  I  have 
had  that  experience  within  two  weeks,  When  I  mildly  suggested 
that  there  was  good  glass  made  in  the  United  States,  trie  saleslady 
said,  "Well,  yes;  some,  there  is  some,"  and  our  ware  was  on  their 
shelves  at  the  very  time. 

Glass  is  sand,  silica;  it  is  melted  sand.  We  put  it  into  a  crucible 
and  apply  heat,  and  it  comes  out  glassware.  Of  course,  there  are 
other  ingredients,  alkalis,  etc.,  on  some  of  which  we  pay  duty — lead 
and  potash.  When  that  glass  is  melted,  or  rather  the  sand  is  melted, 
the  rest  of  it  is  labor,  every  bit.  Everything  in  the  manufacture  of 
glass  has  advanced  in  the  last  few  years.  I  do  not  mean  skilled 
labor,  but  the  unskilled  labor  and  everything  in  connection  with 
the  works  have  advanced.  All  the  materials  have  advanced  hi 
price  and  prices  for  the  glass  have  been  going  down  steadily.  As 
my  friend  said  a  moment  ago,  there  has  never  been  such  a  condition 
in  the  United  States;  there  have  never  been  such  low  prices. 

I  remarked  that  the  dealer  preferred  imported  glass.  Now,  let 
mo  illustrate.  Tiffany,  of  New  York — you  all  know  Tiffany — sells 
domestic  American  cut  glass  bought  directly  from  the  manufacturer 
at  .33^  per  cent  advance.  I  can  take  you  to  half  a  dozen  stores 
within  two  or  three  blocks  of  Tiffany's,  where  they  are  selling  im- 
ported glass,  and  making  from  100  to  200  per  cent.  There  is  no 
question  about  it.  It  is  done  every  clay.  We  are  not  patriotic 
here.  In  France  you  can  not  give  them  American  glassware.  They 
want  French;  they  do  not  want  anything  else,  but  here  we  want 
imported  glass.  It  is  a  magic  word,  and  as  the  women  buy  the  glass- 
ware particularly,  that  is  the  word  that  charms  them;  and  it  covers 
a  multitude  of  defects. 

Fine  glassware  is  a  luxury.  And  yet,  when  I  say  it  is  a  luxury, 
the  class  of  people  that  you  think  would  buy  it  are  those  that  go  to 
other  side.  Let  me  illustrate.  Two  or  three  years  ago  I  was  talking 
with  a  dealer  on  Fifth  Avenue,  a  dealer  in  very  high-grade  goods.  I 
said  to  him.  "T  suppose  your  trade  is  confined  to  Fifth  Avenue?" 
"Xo,"  he  said,  "I  do  not  believe  you  know  the  class  of  people  I  sell 


SCHEDULE  B.  741 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

to.  I  do  not  sell  to  the  very  wealthy  and  fashionable  people,  the 
people  who  go  abroad.  What  do  you  suppose  Mrs.  A  buys  in  this 
country?  Her  milk  and  her  morning  paper.  Everything  else  she 
gets  in  Europe."  And  there  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  that. 

The  very  people  who  should  buy  our  glass  and  who  should  buy 
the  best  quality  are  the  ones  who  get  it  from  Europe.  Every  little 
while  we  read  that  Mrs.  So-and-so  has  had  an  expensive  set  made 
in  Europe,  especially  designed  and  imported  to  order.  Yet  the  very 
best  glass  hi  the  world  is  right  next  door  to  her.  The  poor  people 
do  not  want  our  class  of  glass;  they  can  not  buy  it.  If  it  was  given 
to  them  they  would  not  know  what  to  do  with  it;  they  would  break 
it.  Our  trade  is  confined,  you  might  say,  to  the  average  well-to-do 
citizen,  who  is  cultivated  and  educated.  With  him  it  is  a  necessity. 
Unfortunately  the  women  buy  the  glassware,  and  when  the  dealer 
says,  "This  is  imported;  it  is  the  latest  thing,"  that  settles  it.  I 
can  assure  you  that  if  you  take  two  articles,  identical  in  every  way, 
made  at  the  same  place  and  under  the  same  conditions,  and  you 
say  to  the  average  woman,  "This  one  is  $12,  the  other  one  is  $15,"  she 
will  ask  you,  "Why  is  that  $15?"  and  you  say,  "It  is  imported," 
and  she  will  take  it.  She  does  not  know  anything  about  it;  she 
simply  relies  on  what  the  dealer  tells  her. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  is  like  imported  positions.  They  will  not 
give  them  to  the  natives,  but  have  to  import. 

Mr.  DORFLINGEB.  It  applies  to  a  great  many  things. 

I  would  like  to  refer  to  a  statement  made  a  few  moments  ago  in 
regard  to  the  importation  of  glassware.  I  am  surprised  to  know 
that  the  importation  is  falling  off.  You  know  that  statistics  are 
not  complete.  In  fact,  the  more  I  look  into  them  the  less  I  know 
about  it.  A  great  many  kinds  of  glassware  are  bunched  together, 
but  we  do  know  that  there  have  been  large  importations,  and  I 
think  you  will  find,  if  you  can  get  at  the  data — say,  for  the  impor- 
tations from  Sweden  in  the  last  five  years — and  you  will  find  a  phe- 
nomenal growth. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  We  asked  the  last  witness  to  tell  us  whether  in 
his  opinion  importations  under  paragraph  98  consisted  chiefly  of  c"t 
glass  and  he  said  that  they  did.  I  was  proceeding  upon  that  assump- 
tion. 

Mr.  DORFLIXGER.  I  think  he  is  wrong.  I  do  not  think  the  gentle- 
man is  familiar  with  that  subject.  That  paragraph  covers  a  great 
many  things;  it  concerns  plain  ware,  etched  ware,  engraved  ware, 
stained  ware,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  It  is  very  hard  to  divide 
those  up.  The  fact  is  there  is  comparatively  little  cut  glass  im- 
ported; that  is,  cut  glass  as  we  know  it  here — heavy,  rich  cut  glass. 
The  glassware  that  we  manufacturers  afe  interested  in  is  tableware, 
the  fine  glassware  for  the  table,  dishes,  and  stem  ware  for  table  service, 
that  is  the  kind  which  is  brought  in  here  to  such  a  large  extent.  For 
a  great  many  years,  off  and  on,  my  firm  had  the  contract  for  the 
Navy  ware.  We  had  it  last  year.  This  year  we  lost  it;  it  has  gone 
to  the  other  side.  The  contract  for  1913  is  placed,  and  the  factory  to 
which  that  order  was  given  is  a  very  large  shipper  to  this  country- 
very  large  indeed.  I  do  not  think  the  figures  that  you  have  are 
reliable,  not  that  they  are  wrong,  but  because  they  cover  too  large 
afield. 


742  TABIFP  HEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  So  far  as  the  import  figures  on  glassware  are  con- 
cerned, it  is  practically  conceded  that  there  could  be  very  little 
smuggling  in  glassware  and  the  Treasury  figures  must  be  correct. 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  You  do  not  refer  to  undervaluation  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  DORFLINEGR.  You  do  not  refer  to  undervaluation  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  the  undervaluation  would  amount  to  as 
much  in  one  year  as  in  another  year,  and  the  comparison  remains 
the  same. 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  Yes;  but  it  is  very  hard  to  estimate  it. 

I  do  not  believe,  gentlemen,  that  anything  is  to  be  gained  by 
lowering  the  duties  on  this  class  of  glassware,  except  the  loss  of 
revenue  to  the  Government.  A  thing  is  worth  what  it  will  bring  in 
the  market.  If  this  Swedish  ware  will  bring  $15  to  $18  for  a  goblet, 
when  it  costs  $5  or  $6  or  $6.50  or  $7,  what  difference  is  a  small 
decrease  in  duty  going  to  make  ?  The  only  difference  it  will  make, 
apart  from  the  loss  of  revenue,  will  be  an  increase  in  the  profits  of  the 
foreign  manufacturers  or  the  importer.  I  am  sure  the  dealer  will  pay 
the  same  price,  and  he  will  ask  the  same  retail  price. 

You  win  find  in  some  of  the  briefs  submitted  here  figures  and  state- 
ments as  to  conditions  on  the  other  side. 

Only  yesterday  I  was  told  by  a  gentleman  who  visited  one  of  the 
largest  factories  in  BcJgium  a  year  or  twTo  ago,  a  factory  that  perhaps 
figures  the  largest  in  exports  to  this  country,  that  about  one-half  of 
the  force  were  women  and  girls;  the  laboring  work  was  done  by 
women.  The  coal  was  handled  and  the  ashes  wheeled  by  women. 
We  do  not  want  that  condition  here.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  glass 
manufacturer  in  this  country  that  would  work  under  those  conditions. 
And  if  he  would,  you  would  not  let  him.  So  I  ask  you  gentlemen  to 
protect  us  in  this  industry  and  not  benefit  those  concerns  on  the  other 
side  who  do  not  seem  to  recognize  the  benefits  and  the  advantages 
of  present  civilization. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  7,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  We,  the  manufacturers  of  handmade  blown  glassware  covered 
by  Schedule  B,  paragraph  98,  do  hereby  enter  protest  against  any  revision  downward 
of  the  tariff  now  in  effect. 

Our  reasons  for  objection  to  changes  are  based  upon  the  following  facts: 

I.  That  under  present  conditions  no  unreasonable  profits  have  been  made  by  the 
manufacturers  of  blown  glassware  in  this  country.     Careful  investigation  proves  that 
the  average  return  upon  the  necessary  investment  is  about  4  per  cent.     This  state- 
ment is  open  to  investigation. 

II.  Under  the  protection  afforded  this  industry  by  the  present  tariff  a  very  marked 
improvement  in  quality  has  been  made  in  production  of  American  blown  glassware. 
The  introduction  of  modern  methods  has  reduced  manufacturing  costs,  but  unfortu- 
nately these  advantages  have  been  more  than  offset  by  increases  in  cost  of  skilled  and 
unskilled  labor,  advances  in  prices  of  materials,  and  fuel.     These  increases  have  all 
been  absorbed  by  the  manufacturers  without  any  increase  in  selling  price;  on  the 
contrary  prices  have  gradually  declined. 

Blown  glassware  is  now  sold  in  the  open  market  by  American  manufacturers  at 
about  the  lowest  prices  on  record. 

Large  purchasers  of  this  product  are  the  popular  5  and  10  cent  stores.  A  visit  to 
these  stores  will  easily  convince  your  committee  of  the  fact  that  the  American  manu- 
facturer has  small  opportunity  to  make  big  profits.  In  these  same  stores,  which  im- 
port foreign  goods  direct,  will  be  found  many  lines  and  items  of  etched  imported  blown 


SCHEDULE  B.  743 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

glassware.  These  items  show  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  not  yet  in  a  position 
to  produce  at  a  satisfactory  price  in  competition,  notwithstanding  the  protection 
afforded  under  the  present  tariff  law. 

III.  In  the  manufacture  of  blown  glassware  an  important  factor  is  we  are,  to  a 
great  extent,  selling  labor  and  fuel,  the  average  proportion  of  cost  of  labor  to  the  total 
cost  of  the  finished  article  being  from  70  per  cent  to  80  per  cent. 

We  ask  your  full  consideration  of  these  facts. 
Yours,  truly, 

AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  FLINT  AND  LIME  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS, 

Stevenson  Building,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

WM.     F.     DORFLINGER, 

WM.   M.   ANDERSON, 

E.  O.  CROSS, 

A.  B.  HOUOHTON, 

W.   H.    C  ASS  ELL, 

N.  KOPP, 

A.  J.  BENNETT, 

W.  A.  B.   DALZELL, 

Committee. 


MEMORIAL  OF  AMERICAN  FLINT  GLASS  WORKERS'  UNION. 

COMMITTEE  ON  CLAIMS, 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  UNITED  STATES, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  January  SO,  191S. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

MY  DEAR  COLLEAGUE  :  I  herewith  transmit  for  your  consideration  in  connection  with 
paragraph  B,  schedule  98,  a  communication  from  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers' 
Union,  which  I  will  be  glad  to  have  filed  as  a  brief  and  printed  in  the  record  of  the 
hearings. 

Yours,  very  truly,  WM.  D.  B.  AINEY. 

HEADQUARTERS  LOCAL  UNION  No.  92,  A.  F.  G.  W.  U., 

Honesdale,  Pa.,  January  25,  1913. 

Hon.  W.  D.  B.  AINEY, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  is  now  considering  a  revision  of  the  tariff  laws  on  imported  glasswares 
and  has  the  subject  under  consideration  known  as  paragraph  B,  schedule  98.  We 
most  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  reduced  tariff  means  reduced 
wages  to  our  members  and  other  sacrifices  such  as  were  experienced  under  the  Wilson 
tariff  law. 

We  therefore  beseech  you  and  your  committee  to  not  make  any  reduction  in  the 
present  tariff  rates  on  imported  glasswares,  as  the  present  tariff  rates  do  not  afford 
sufficient  protection  to  the  American  workman,  as  considerable  glassware  is  now  being 
imported,  notwithstanding  the  extraordinary  keen  competition  prevailing  in  the  glass 
markets  of  our  country. 

There  is  no  monopoly  on  glasswares  in  the  American  trade,  and  no  organization 
among  the  flint-glass  manufacturers;  all  are  free  to  sell  as  they  please,  and  prices  are 
very  Tow.  There  will  be  no  relief  afforded  to  the  citizens  of  our  country  if  the  tariff 
rates  are  reduced,  as  it  will  only  intensify  the  present  deplorable  state  of  affairs.  There- 
fore we  most  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  rates,  and  we  trust 
you  will  act  favorably  on  our  appeal. 

I  am,  fraternally,  yours,  GEO.  GRAMBS, 

Corresponding  Secretary. 


744  TARIFF   HBAEINGS. 

PAB-AGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

STATEMENT  OF  H.  D.  CAREY,  PRESIDENT  NATIONAL  ASSOCIA- 
TION OF  CUT-GLASS  MANUFACTURERS,  OF  SCRANTON,  PA. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Carey,  what  paragraph  do  you  wish  to 
refer  to  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Paragraph  98,  I  believe  it  is,  on  cut  glass. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  glassware.  Do  you  wish  to  refer  entirely 
to  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  It  refers  to  cut  glass,  decorated,  etc.,  I  believe.  I  wish 
to  confine  all  of  my  statements  to  cut  glass.  That  is  the  only  thing 
I  know  anything  about  in  connection  with  this  line. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  CAREY.  Gentlemen,  I  believe  the  cut-glass  industry  is  in  a 
different  condition  than  most  people  realize,  and  in  a  different  condi- 
tion from  most  other  manufacturing  industries,  it  being  a  luxury, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  price  at  which  it  is  being  sold  is  on  as  close  a 
margin  as  a  necessity.  I  believe  that  this  committee  are  desirous 
of  gaining  actual  knowledge  of  the  facts  as  they  exist,  and  of  passing 
upon  them  according  to  those  facts;  and  for  that  reason  I  have 
gone  to  some  little  trouble  and  given  it  the  most  careful  consideration 
that  I  could  in  the  short  time  which  I  had,  in  order  to  give  this  com- 
mittee a  good  idea  of  the  conditions  in  the  cut-glass  business. 

As  an  introductory  statement  I  will  go  into  the  history  of  the  busi- 
ness a  little  to  show  you  that  there  are  no  trusts  and  no  combinations  ; 
that  the  business  is  conducted  and  managed  by  men  of  very  moderate 
circumstances.  Nearly  all  of  them  that  are  in  the  business  are  men 
who  have  been  workmen  behind  the  frame,  and  they  are  now  running 
the  shops ;  and  in  many  of  the  shops  all  of  the  workmen  in  the  shops 
are  members  of  the  firm.  That  is  a  very  common  thing.  In  1876 
there  were  5  cut-glass  factories  in  the  United  States.  In  1897  there 
were  18  cut-glass  factories,  with  1,952  frames,  or  an  average  of  about 
108  frames  to  the  shop.  By  frame  we  mean  that  the  glass  is  put  be- 
hind a  frame,  in  the  actual  cutting  of  the  glass,  and  there  would  be  an 
operator  for  each  frame. 

In  1902  there  were  80 — and  I  want  you  to  mark  this,  gentlemen, 
in  1876,  5;  in  1897,  18;  and  in  1902,  80.  In  1902  there  were  3,500 
frames,  or  an  average  of  41  frames  to  the  shop.  In  1912,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  there  are  139  factories,  4,800  frames,  or  an  average  of  35 
frames  to  the  factory.  Those  are  the  frames  which  are  operative. 
Every  factory  is  equipped — I  might  say  nearly  every  factory,  because 
there  might  be  a  very  few  to  which  it  would  not  apply — but  nearly 
every  factory  is  equipped  to  operate  considerably  more  than  they  are 
now  doing.  There  are  at  least  1,000  frames  at  the  present  time  that 
are  inoperative,  which  would  supply  a  further  production  of  from  a 
million  dollars  to  a  million  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

Our  factories  during  the  last  year  cut  and  produced  and  sold  in 
this  country  about  $6,000,000  worth  of  cut  glass.  The  foreign  im- 
portation, as  near  as  I  can  get  it  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  is 
over  a  million  dollars,  not  including  the  duty,  which  would  make  it 
over  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars,  or  about  one-seventh  or  over 
one-seventh  of  the  total  amount  produced. 


SCHEDULE  B.  745 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  So  that  you  estimate  all  of  the  importations  under 
paragraph  98  are  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  No,  I  do  not.  The  importations  under  paragraph  98 
in  the  last  year,  ending  June  30,  1912,  was  $1,001,542  without  the 
60  per  cent  duty.  The  greater  portion  of  that  is  cut  glass.  It  does 
not  distinguish  as  to  what  is  cut  glass  and  what  is  nok  With  the 
60  per  cent  added,  I  estimate  that  the  value,  as  laid  down  in  this 
country,  will  amount  to  $1,500,000,  and  I  think  that  is  a  conserva- 
tive estimate,  making  due  allowance — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing) .  You  mean  importations  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  value  of  the  importations,  about 
$1,000,000. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Practically  all  of  the  imports  under  paragraph  98 
are  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir;  practically  all  are  cut  glass,  as  I  understand  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  figures  that  we  have  here  have  come  from  the 
Census  Department,  the  Census  of  1910,  and  they  show  that  the 
American  production  of  this  article  amounts  to  $27,000,000. 

Mr.  CAREY.  Of  cut  glass  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Covering  all  these  articles: 

Glass  bottles  and  decanters,  and  all  articles  of  every  description,  composed  wholly 
or  in  chief  value  of  glass,  ornamented  or  decorated,  cut,  engraved,  painted,  colored, 
stained,  silvered,  gilded,  etched,  sand-blasted,  frosted  and  printed,  or  in  any  manner, 
or  ground,  etc.;  all  the  foregoing  filled  or  unfilled,  and  whether  their  contents  be 
dutiable  or  free. 

What  articles  do  they  refer  to  there  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  They  refer,  perhaps,  to  a  good  many  articles  that  are 
not  listed  in  the  statistics  which  I  have,  or  which  I  know  anything 
about.  Ground  glass  may  be  a  great  many  things  and  may  be  used 
and  included. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  the  imports  of  those  articles  are  confined 
solely  to  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Not  solely,  but  nearly  so. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  are  basing  your  argument  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  practically  all  of  the  imports  are  cut  glass,  and  yet  only 
$6,000,000  out  of  the  $27,000,000  of  the  American  production  are  cut 
glass. 

Mr.  CAREY.  I  deny  absolutely  that  there  is  a  production  of  $27,000,- 
000  worth  of  cut  glass.  I  have  gone  over  this  matter  very  carefully 
and  I  can  speak  authoritatively  on  the  subject.  The  amount  manu- 
factured in  this  country  is  but  $6,000,£)00  worth.  I  can  speak  more 
accurately  than  the  Census  Bureau  can  speak  on  this  subject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Census  Bureau's  figures  cover  the  whole 
paragraph. 

Mr.  CAREY.  They  cover  a  good  many  other  items,  and,  including  all 
the  other  items,  it  is  probably  over  $6,000,000.  But  I  am  confining 
myself  to  cut  glass  or  decorated  ware. 

The  amount  that  is  imported  into  this  country  would  compare 
almost  equally  in  proportion  to  the  amount  that  would  be  produced 
by  the  idle  frames  which  we  have  in  this  country  to-day.  If  you  will 
observe,  we  have  1,000  frames  idle  in  this  country  to-day  and  they 
would  just  about  manufacture  the  amount  of  cut  glass  that  is 
imported  into  this  country. 


746  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

As  I  said  before,  there  is  an  average  of  about  35  frames  or  35 
cutters  to  each  shop,  so  that  you  can  see  the  matter  has  gotten  down 
almost  to  where  it  is  managed  and  controlled  by  the  workmen  in  the 
greater  percentage  of  the  shops.  I  will  say  that  90  per  cent  of  the 
cut-glass  shops,  the  cutting  shops — and  it  may  run  higher  than  that — 
are  run  by  men  who  have  been  employed  behind  the  frames,  and  a 
great  percentage  of  the  workmen  in  the  shops  are  the  men  who  own 
the  business.  That  applies  to  cut  glass,  but  I  think  it  will  apply  to 
very  few  of  the  other  items.  You  will  bear  in  mind  that  in  starting 
into  the  cut-glass  business  it  does  not  take  very  much  capital.  Cap- 
ital is  employed  when  they  grow  larger;  but  with  only  35  frames  there 
is  not  a  very  large  amount  of  capital  employed  in  any  one  factory. 
They  are  all  in  the  keenest  competition  with  each  other.  Cut  glass 
to-day  is  being  sold  far,  far  too  cheap.  You  can  inquire  of  any  buyer 
of  cut  glass  in  any  of  the  big  department  stores  that  you  please  and 
they  will  tell  you  that  cut  glass  is  being  sold  entirely  too  cheap.  It 
is  common  knowledge  in  the  trade,  and  it  has  been  caused  by  extreme 
keen  competition,  not  only  at  home  but  abroad.  The  American 
manufacturers  have  attempted  to  enter  into  competition  with  the 
foreign  manufacturers,  but  even  with  the  60  per  cent  duty  that  is  on 
cut  glass  to-day  it  does  not  make  up  the  difference,  as  I  figure  it  out, 
between  the  cost  of  production  abroad  and  in  this  country. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  imports  in  1912  were  only  a  little  over 
$1,000,000  and  in  1905  they  were  nearly  $1,800,000? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  do  you  account  for  that  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  I  can  answer  it  in  this  way.  There  are  not  one-tenth 
of  the  cut-glass  factories  in  the  United  States  to-day  that  are  paying 
any  dividends.  Most  of  them  will  show  a  loss. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  do  not  believe  that  is  because  they  have 
nearly  equalized  the  cost  of  production  in  both  countries? 

Mr.  CAREY.  No;  but  1  ecause  the  American  manufacturer  is  at- 
tempting to  meet  the  competition  with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 
The  cost  of  labor  in  Europe  is  one-half  or  one-third,  as  I  am  informed, 
of  the  cost  that  the  American  manufacturer  as  to  pay  for  the  same 
class  of  labor.  I  can  not  speak  authoritatively  on  tiat;  that  is 
simply  the  report  that  has  come  to  me,  but  I  think  it  is  correct.  If 
you  gentlemen  have  any  figures  on  that  subject,  I  think  they  will 
bear  me  out. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  The  imports  of  1911  amounted  to  $1,341,000. 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yos. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  They  have  not  been  uniform  from  yeag  to  year? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Xo,  sir;  cut  glass  is  a  luxury.  If  the  country  is  pros- 
perous, if  everything  is  going  along  well,  then  you  will  see  cut  glass 
is  being  sold,  because  it  is  a  luxury. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  The  following  articles  are  mentioned  in  paragraph  98: 

Glass  bottles  and  decanters,  and  all  articles  of  every  description  composed  wholly 
or  in  chief  value  of  glass,  ornamented  or  decorated,  cut,  engraved,  painted,  colored, 
stained,  silvered,  gilded,  etched,  sand  blasted,  frosted,  and  printed. 

And  so  forth. 

On  which  of  those  articles  do  you  have  to  put  the  most  labor? 
Mr.  CAREY.  On  cut  glass.     Every  indentation  or  cut  on  a  piece  of 
cut  glass  means  so  much  labor. 


SCHEDULE  B.  747 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  So  that  the  duty  being  60  per  cent,  that  would  be  more 
apt  to  affect  the  cut  glass  than  any  of  these  other  articles,  because 
there  is  more  labor  used  on  the  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  And  the  difference  hi  the  cost  of  labor  is  greater  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  said  the  difference  was  a  half  or  a  third  less  in 
Europe.  Do  you  mean  that  or  did  you  mean  that  it  is  a  half  or  a 
third  of  the  labor  cost  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  I  mean  that  a  man  that  would  receive  $12  in  the 
United  States  would  only  receive  $4  or  $6  in  Europe. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  It  is  two-thirds  less  instead  of  one-third.  I  thought 
you  were  mistaken  about  that,  because  it  is  different  from  my  infor- 
mation on  the  subject. 

Mr.  CAREY.  I  hope  you  will  take  me  as  to  what  I  mean,  if  I  mis- 
quote myself. 

During  the  last  10  years,  speaking  of  the  production  in  the  cut- 
glass  industry — and  I  am  really  ashamed  to  make  this  statement  with 
regard  to  any  manufacturing  industry,  and  especially  one  in  which  I 
am  personally  interested — during  the  last  10  years  there  have  been 
98  firms  that  have  either  failed  or  discontinued. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  And  all  this  under  a  high-protective  tariff'  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Under  a  high-protective  tariff;  yes,  sir.  I  say  that  60 
per  cent  does  not  cover  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  manufacture. 
The  total  number  in  that  length  of  time,  considering  all  those  that 
failed,  was  237,  or  40  per  cent  of  the  total;  70  per  cent  of  the  number 
that  was  in  business  at  any  one  tune.  One  hundred  and  forty  is  the 
greatest  number  of  factories  that  have  been  hi  business  at  any  one 
time,  and  70  per  cent  of  that  number  have  either  discontinued  or 
failed.  A  number  of  them  discontinued  because  there  was  abso- 
lutely no  profit  and  they  could  not  meet  the  competition  such  as  we 
have.  This  is  a  rather  lamentable  state  of  affairs;  but  I  will  state, 
like  some  of  the  former  speakers  have  done,  that  we  are  willing  for 
this  committee  or  any  committee,  or  anyone  that  this  committee  may 
designate,  to  examine  the  books  of  any  of  the  cut-glass  manufactur- 
ers, or  all  of  them,  because  they  are  open  to  this  committee,  and  any 
statements  which  I  have  made  here  will  be  borne  out  accurately  as  I 
have  made  them. 

I  have  made  an  illustration  of  the  cost  figures  that  may  be  of 
interest  to  you  gentlemen.  All  the  representatives  that  have  ap- 
peared before  this  committee  have  been  representatives  of  manufac- 
turers that  have  been  interested  hi  both  the  manufacture  of  glass 
and  the  cutting  of  glass.  The  cutting  shop  does  not  manufacture 
any  glass.  They  go  out  on  the  market  and  buy  their  blanks  and 
thev  cut  them  and  do  the  other  work  on  them.  For  instance,  we 
will  take  an  8-inch  bowl  for  illustration.  Suppose  we  pay  $9  a 
dozen  for  the  blanks  in  this  country,  and  we  wnl  say  we  pay  &4  for 
the  roughing  and  $6  for  the  smoothing;  then  the  breakage  and  the 
overhead  expense,  clerk  hire,  and  all  those  things  going  into  it  will 
figure  100  per  cent  on  roughing  and  smoothing,  as  near  as  I  can  get 
at  it,  and  I  think  it  is  very  accurate.  I  have  taken  percentage  fig- 
ures so  as  to  make  it  more  plain.  It  would  amount  to  $10,  the 
roughing  and  smoothing,  and  it  would  make  the  total  cost  to  the 


748  TABEBT  HEABINQS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

factory  for  that  article  of  $29.  They  are  paying  one-half  for  labor. 
The  blank  would  be  cheaper  without  duty.  I  have  taken  off  20  per 
cent,  and  when  you  take  off  60  per  cent  you  have  got  about  36  per 
cent.  I  have  done  this  to  show  that  I  am  conservative  in  my  esti- 
mates. Taking  off  20  per  cent  would  leave  for  the  blanks  $7.20  a 
dozen;  counting  foreign  labor  at  one-third  of  labor  cost  in  the 
United  States,  it  would  make  the  roughing  $1.33  and  the  smoothing 
$2,  and  it  would  make  an  overhead  expense  of  $3.33 — granting  that 
there  is  the  same  amount  of  breakage  there  as  here — or  it  would 
make  a  difference  of  110  per  cent  in  the  cost  of  production.  If  you 
take  it  on  the  basis  of  labor  costing  one-half,  you  nave  a  cost  abroad 
of  $17.20  against  $29,  or  a  difference  of  69  per  cent.  Those  are  correct 
figures,  and  when  I  say  that  60  per  cent  would  not  cover  the  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  production,  I  am  speaking  accurately  and  not 
estimating. 

I  have  here  a  letter  that  may  bear  a  little  on  this  subject,  from  one 
of  our  manufacturers  in  St.  Louis,  with  reference  to  the  running  of 
a  factory  by  him  in  England,  which  reads  as  follows: 

I  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  wages  paid  there,  and  we  had  no  difficulty  in 
getting  a  good  glass  cutter  to  work  for  $7  a  week.  As  you  doubtless  know,  glass  cutters 
in  England  are  paid  higher  wages  than  in  any  other  European  country.  In  France, 
Sweden,  and  Belgium  the  wages  paid  grade  lower. 

Then  he  goes  on  and  mentions  an  importer  that  was  recently  dis- 
playing a  line  of  samples  in  St.  Louis,  and  states  that  judging  from 
the  prices  which  he  was  asking  for  those  goods  that  even  with  the 
60  per  cent  duty  we  could  not  pay  our  men  $9  a  week  and  get  the 
same  articles  cut. 

I  will  say  this — it  may  be  new  to  you  gentlemen,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  you  are  very  familiar  with  this  subject — that  the  Japanese 
Government,  which,  as  we  know,  is  very  aggressive  and  progressive 
in  this  day  in  the  way  of  manufacturing,  has  employed  experts  from 
both  the  United  States  and  from  Europe,  and  is  attempting  to  estab- 
lish the  cut-glass  business,  with  the  idea  of  competing.  You  all 
know  that  they  have  extremely  cheap  labor  in  Japan.  So  far  we 
have  never  had  any  importations  of  cut  glass  from  Japan  and  there 
has  never  been  any  cut  glass  manufactured  in  Japan  to  my  knowl- 
edge, but  they  are  now  working  upon  that  subject. 

We  are  one  of  the  very  small  industries  that  will  appear  before  you, 
perhaps  one  of  the  smallest — although  I  have  heard  of  some  here  that 
were  smaller — but  we  employ  a  great  many  men  in  comparison  to 
the  amount  of  our  production,  and  we  ask  that  you  gentlemen  give 
this  matter  the  same  consideration  that  you  would  give  to  some  of 
the  larger  affairs. 

While  it  may  not  bo  important  from  a  governmental  standpoint,  it 
is  vitally  important  to  the  men  who  have  their  all  invested  in  the 
glass-cutting  business;  just  as  vitally  important  to  us  as  though  the 
business  were  much  larger.  After  you  get  the  facts  which  give  you 
a  knowledge  of  this  business  I  am  satisfied  that  instead  of  any  reduc- 
tion or  any  lowering  of  the  rates  there  will  be  a  raising  of  the  rates. 
We  are  perfectly  satisfied  to  have  the  rule  which  has  been  announced 
from  the  platform  so  many  times  during  this  campaign,  that  the 
difference  in  the  cost  of  production  abroad  and  here  will  be  the  rate 


SCHEDULE  B.  749 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

of  duty.  If  that  rule  is  applied  we  have  no  complaint;  we  are  satis- 
fied with  that  rule. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  other  articles 
that  are  covered  in  this  paragraph  outside  of  cut  glass?  Are  they 
all  classed  as  articles  of  luxury  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  They  are  all  luxuries;  yes,  sir.  Hand-painted  ware 
would  be  a  luxury,  and  anything  of  that  kind  would  be  «,  luxury; 
they  would  all  be  classed  as  luxuries. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Why  do  you  believe  that  the  revenue  is  dwindling 
so  under  this  rate  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Why  do  I  believe  that  the  revenue  is  dwindling  ? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Yes.  The  imports  are  reducing  in  amount  from 
year  to  year,  apparently. 

Mr.  CAREY.  Tne  American  manufacturer,  as  I  say,  is  attempting 
to  meet  foreign  competition.  In  doin<*  that  they  have  perhaps  made 
a  mistake.  They  have  done  it  under  the  60  per  cent  duty;  they  have 
in  vested  their  money,  and  they  want  to  make  it  good.  They  are 
selling  it  entirely  too  cheap.  Most  of  those  that  have  their  money 
invested  are  the  workmen;  it  is  their  business,  and  they  keep  per- 
sistently at  it,  as  one  who  has  got  into  something  bad  and  wants  to 
make  it  good.  They  have  given  it  a  great  deal  of  attention.  The 
manufacturer  has  tried  to  do  everything  he  can  to  scientifically  pro- 
duce the  articles  here  in  order  that  he  can  meet  that  foreign  com- 
petition. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Prices  must  have  been  falling  off? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir;  prices  have  fallen  off  50  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  what  period  of  time? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Within  six  years. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  In  cut  glass  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  In  cut  glass;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Was  the  quantity  imported  very  much  greater  on  the 
million  dollar's  worth  basis — 

Mr.  CAREY  (interrupting).  Oh,  yes;  very  much  greater. 

Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  for  the  attention  which  you  have  given  me. 
If  there  are  any  facts  that  you  wish  in  connection  with  this  matter,  1 
will  be  only  too  glad  to  supply  them  to  you  if  it  is  within  my  power.  I 
have  means  of  getting  data  from  the  different  factories,  and  I  will  be 
glad  to  supply  you  with  any  information  desired. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  factories  are  there  now  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  One  hundred  and  thirty-nine. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  And  how  many  failed  in  the  last  two  years  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Ninety-eight  in  the  last  10  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Have  there  been  any  new  factories  started  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes,  sir;  wherever  there  has  been  a  failure  there  is  a 
plant  that  is  absolutely  worthless  unless  it  is  used  as  a  cut-glass 
factory;  there  is  the  machinery,  and  where  there  is  a  failure,  as  a 
rule,  some  one  connected  with  that  shop  has  started  it  up  again  in  a 
smaller  way. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  So  that  the  failures  have  not  decreased  the  number 
of  factories  actually  in  operation? 

Mr.  CAREY.  No;  the  factories  are  as  great  to-day  in  number. 
The  production  is  very  much  greater,  because  it  is  sold  so  much 
cheaper. 


750  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  old  is  the  industry  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  In  1876  there  were  five  factories.  I  have  named  them 
in  my  brief. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  About  how  many  men  are  employed  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  In  the  cutting  there  are  about  5,000,  and  then  the 
clerk  hire  and  other  employees  would  probably  bring  that  up  to  about 
7,000. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  In  the  cutting  the  employees  are  skilled  laborers  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  Yes;  they  are  all  skilled  laborers. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  And  they  receive  about  how  much  per  day  ? 

Mr.  CAREY.  I  think  in  a  union  shop  they  receive  a  minimum  of  $15 
a  week,  and  it  runs  from  there  on  up  to  $21  and  $24  a  week,  according 
to  skill.  They  are  not  all  union  shops  and  the  wages  will  run  any- 
where from  $12  to  $24  per  week.  Some  very  skilled  labor  will  get 
more  than  that,  as  high  as  $30  a  week.  It  will  average  around  $16 
to  $17  or  $18  a  week,  I  think. 

BRIEF  OF  MR.  H.  D.  CAREY. 

To  the  honorable  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 

United  States  of  America  in  committee  assembled: 

The  petition  of  the  undersigned,  representing  the  cut  glass  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States,  respectfully  showeth: 

1.  In  the  year  1876  there  was  in  the  United  States  only  5  cutting  shops,  to  wit: 
C.  Dorflinger,  White  Mills,  Pa.;  J.  Hoare  &  Co.,  Corning,  N.  Y.;  Mount  Washington 
Glass  Co..  New  Bedford,  Mass.;  Meriden  Silver  Plate  Co.,  Meriden,  Conn.;  and  Wilcox 
Silver  Plate  Co.,  Meriden,  Conn. 

2.  In  the  year  1897  there  was  in  the  United  States  18  shops,  using  1,952  frames.     In 
the  year  1902,  80  cutting  shops  and  3,500  frames,  and  in  the  year  1912  there  are  139 
shops  and  not  less  than  4,800  frames  in  actual  use  and  about  1,000  frames  inactive, 
making  a  total  of  5,800  frames,  and  about  5,000  glass  cutters  actually  employed  besides 
a  large  amount  of  other  help  necessary  around  a  manufacturing  plant. 

3.  The  average  frames  per  shop  in  1897  was  108,  and  in  1902,  44,  and  in  1912  less  than 
35.     During  the  past  year  these  shops  have  produced  and  sold  more  than  $6,000,000 
in  cut  glass.     Nearly  every  shop  is  equipped  for  very  much  larger  production,  which 
is  limited  only  by  the  market  demand. 

4.  That  in  the  cut-glass  trade  there  are  no  trusts,  monopolies,  or  large  combinations 
controlling  either  prices  or  production,  and  there  is  the  very  liveliest  competition 
among  all  of  the  several  cut-glass  manufacturers.     This  competition  is  not  only  with 
the  factories  in  this  country  but  also  with  the  factories  in  Europe.     Nearly  all  of  the 
shops  in  tliis  country  are  owned,  managed,  and  controlled  by  men  of  very  moderate 
means:  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  owners  being  men  who  have  learned  their  trade 
in  other  factories,  saved  a  little  money,  and  started  in  business  for  themselves,  and 
with  the  keen  competition  at  the  present  time  all  of  the  cutting  shops  have  more  than 
their  due  burden.     By  reason  of  this  strong  competition  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
during  the  last  10  years  98  firms  have  either  discontinued  business  or  failed  out  of 
of  a  total  of  237  firms  in  business  showing  40  per  cent  on  a  total  and  a  much  greater 
percentage  on  the  number  of  firms  in  business  at  any  one  time,  which  perhaps  would 
not  exceed   140.  but.  as  firms  have  failed  or  discontinued  new  shops  have  started  to 
lake  their  place,  composed  usually  of  workmen  who  have  been  employed  in  the  old 
or  discontinued   shop.     Therefore,   the  number  of  firms  who  discontinue  business 
during  the  last  10  years  would  equal  70  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  cut-glass  manu- 
facturers iu  business  at  any  one  time  during  this  period. 

5.  In  the  year  1897  four  shops  continued  more  than  one-half  of  all  the  frames,  any 
one  of  which  were  much  larger  than  any  of  the  shops  to-day.     You  will  therefore 
observe  that  while  cut  glass  has  become  very  popular  and  the  number  of  firms  and 
the  men  employed  greatly  increased  that  the  frames  in  the  shop  have  decreased  from 
an  average  of  108  in  1897  to  less  than  35  in  1912. 

6.  Cut  glass  is  a  luxury  and  is  now  sold  much  cheaper  than  any  manufacturer  in 
the  United  Slates  can  afford  to  sell  it.  and  if  any  of  you  gentlemen  are  familiar  with  the 
cut-glass   business  you  will  readily  agree  that  it  is  a  fact  that  very  few  cut-glass 


SCHEDULE  B.  751 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

manufacturers  are  paying  any  dividends  upon  the  money  invested,  and  any  depre- 
ciation in-  the  tariff  that  would  allow  stronger  competition  from  European  countries 
would  mean  ruination  to  a  large  number  of  manufacturers. 

7.  We  regret  exceedingly  that  we  are  unable  to  produce  accurate  data  concerning 
the  cutting  shops  of  Europe  and  the  labor  paid  in  same,  but  on  the  best  information 
we  are  able  to  get  the  cut-glass  factories  in  Europe  are  very  numerous,  and  we  believe 
that  statistics  from  the  customhouse  will  show  large  importations  of  cut  glass  from 
Austria,  Germany,  Belgium,  France,  and  England,  and  particularly  in  the  last  five 
years  from  Sweden.    This  class  of  ware  has  made  deep  inroads  to  the  American  trade 
by  reason  of  the  very  good  quality  of  the  ware  and  the  very  low  prices  at  which  it  is 
Bold.    We  believe  it  can  be  shown  that  some  of  this  ware  is  sold  in  the  large  stores  of 
this  country  at  three  times  its  cost  and  at  a  profit  of  200  per  cent,  whereas  the  profit 
on  domestic  ware  is  based  on  selling  it  for  33J  to  50  per  cent  advance  on  the  costs, 
and  in  very  rare  cases  at  100  per  cent  over  cost. 

8.  As  above  stated,  this  business  is  owned,  managed,  and  controlled  by  people  who 
were  formerly  workmen,  and  are  of  only  very  moderate  circumstances.    That  there 
is  no  demand  in  this  country  for  cheaper  cut  glass,  and  in  fact  it  is  now  being  sold  at 
considerably  less  than  the  manufacturer  can  afford  to  market  it.    We  believe  that  the 
present  tariff  rate  of  60  per  cent  is,  if  anything,  too  low,  and  will  not  equalize  to  the 
American  manufacturer  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production.     In  considering  this 
matter  please  bear  in  mind  that  the  American  manufacturer  is  obliged  to  buy  blanks 
for  cutting  upon  which  there  is  a  duty.     On  practically  all  the  supplies  he  uses  there 
is  a  duty,  and  that  these  articles  are  much  more  expensive  in  the  United  States  than 
they  are  in  Europe;  that  if  you  will  refer  to  accurate  statistics  upon  the  matter  of 
labor  you  will  find  that  labor  in  this  country  is  paid  much  greater  wages  than  the  glass 
districts  of  foreign  countries.     When  all  these  matters  are  taken  in  consideration  and 
accurate  calculations  made  upon  the  basis  of  cost  of  production  in  Europe  and  in  this 
country  you  will  find  that  the  present  duty  of  60  per  cent  ia  too  low  to  cover  the  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  production. 

9.  We  are  reliably  informed  that  the  Japanese  Government  has  in  the  past  two  years 
attempted  to  establish  the  cut-glass  business  in  that  country,  and   has  employed 
experts  both  from  Europe  and  America  to  teach  their  help.     We  believe,  gentlemen, 
that  it  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  tell  you  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  American  mechanic 
to  live  on  the  same  wages  as  is  paid  to  European  and  Japanese  labor,  and  we  sincerely 
trust  that  you  will  give  this  subject  your  most  careful  consideration,  and  will  not 
allow  any  reduction  in  the  present  tariff  of  60  per  cent. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

WM.  F.  DORFLINGER, 

H.  D.  CAREY, 
Representatives  of  the  Cut-Glass  Manufacturers. 

MEMORIAL  OF  CUT  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

THE  CUT  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS  ASSOCIATION, 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  December  SI,  1912. 
Hon.  JOHN  J.  FITZGERALD: 

Having  been  informed  that  there  will  be  a  hearing  on  January  8,  1913,  about  the 
matter  of  the  United  States  customs  tariff  on  cut  glass  before  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  having  been  advised  to  present  the 
following  facts  to  our  Congressman  with  the  request  that  you  kindly  present  same  to 
the  proper  authorities,  the  Cut  Glass  Manufacturers  Association,  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 
at  a  meeting  held  December  30,  1912,  beg  leave  to  offer  the  following  facts,  to  wit: 

That  the  duty  of  60  per  cent  as  at  present  charged  on  cut  glass,  which  is  a  luxury,  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  protect  this  industry  in  the  United  States,  for  the  following 
reasons: 

That  the  wages  paid  to  the  workmen  cutting  glass  in  the  factories  of  the  undersigned 
and  other  factories  manufacturing  cut  glass  in  the  United  States  average  from  $16 
to  $23  per  week,  while  in  the  European  factories  the  workmen  doing  glass  cutting  of 
the  same  kind  receive  only  from  §6  to  $12  per  week;  and  even  under  these  conditions 
we  have  hard  work  to  compete  with  the  foreign-made  cut  glass,  and  any  reduction  in 
the  present  duty  of  60  per  cent  on  same  would  tend  to  greatly  reduce  the  cut  glass 
industry  in  the  United  States  and  throw  many  workmen  at  present  engaged  in  this 
industry  in  the  United  States  out  of  work. 

At  present,  and  for  some  years  past,  we  have  been  employing  about  750  men  in  this 
industry  in  Brooklyn,  and  there  are  many  more  factories  in  our  line  throughout  the 


752  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

United  States  who  will  probably  offer  similar  facts  and  petitions  through  their  Repre- 
sentatives. 

We  should  be  very  pleased  to  give  you  any  further  information  which  you  might 
desire  about  the  foregoing  matter. 

Trusting  that  you  will  give  this  matter  your  kind  attention,  and  hoping  to  hear 
from  you  about  same  in  due  course,  we  are, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

CUT  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS  ASSOCIATION  OF  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 
By  THOS.  B.  CAMPBELL,  President. 
J.  H.  HERRFELDT,  Secretary. 

STATEMENT     OF     G.    P.     ALTENBERG,    PRESIDENT     OF     THE 
"ICY-HOT"  BOTTLE  CO.,  CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Longworth,  I  believe  you  desired  to  have 
some  one  from  Cincinnati  make  a  brief  statement  ? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Altenberg  of  Cincin- 
nati desires  to  present  something  to  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  hear  from  him  at  this  time. 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  If  the  committee  please,  I  manufacture  vacuum 
bottles,  jars,  and  carafes,  used  for  keeping  food  and  drinks  hot  or 
cold. 

These  are  usually  sold  in  their  metal  casings.  Sometimes  they  are 
sold  without  the  casing.  This  is  an  entirely  new  industry  hi  this 
country.  It  is  less  than  five  years  old.  The  American  output  is 
now  about  8600,000  a  year.  It  is  produced  by  five  concerns,  the 
largest  of  which  is  an  offshoot  of  the  largest  German  company.  Ger- 
many still  produces  most  of  the  vacuum  bottles  made  in  the  world. 
Recently  the  German  manufacturers  solicited  us  to  discontinue 
the  manufacture  in  this  country  and  offered  to  supply  us  with  these 
bottles,  read}7  to  put  into  their  casings  at  80  per  cent  of  what  it 
cost  us  to  make  them  now.  In  other  words,  they  would  lay  them 
down  in  Cincinnati,  freight  and  duty  paid,  delivered  to  us  at  80 
per  cent  of  our  present  actual  cost. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  To  what  paragraph  are  you  addressing  your- 
self '? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  Paragraph  98. 

German  bottles  in  metal  cases,  which  is  the  form  in  which  they  are 
usually  sold,  have  recently  been  imported  and  laid  down  here,  in- 
cluding the  60  per  cent  duty  and  freight,  at  a  cost  of  64  cents,  while 
it  cost  me  80  cents  to  make  the  same  article.  Therefore,  the  impor- 
ter from  Germany  can  to-day  undersell  us  20  per  cent. 

Almost  everything  of  value  that  enters  into  our  cost  is  actual  labor 
performed  in  our  factory  or  some  other  factory  working  for  us.  I 
recently  made  an  experiment  to  see  whether  we  could  compete  with 
Germany  manufacturers  if  we  wont  on  the  same  basis  they  are  on; 
so  I  imported  the  raw  material  from  Germany,  in  order  to  get  the 
benefit  of  the  drawback  when  I  reexported  the  goods.  I  have  here  a 
number  of  letters  from  our  foreign  customers  informing  us  that  our 
prices  arc  too  high,  even  though  we  offered  them  the  goods  at  the 
actual  cost  of  production.  Wo  wanted  to  see  how  low  we  had  to  get 
in  order  to  compete  with  Germany,  using  the  German  material  on 
which  we  get  the  drawback  and  we  actually  offered  these  goods  at  the 
cost,  just  as  an  experiment,  and  we  could  not  land  the  business. 


SCHEDULE   B.  753 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Heretofore,  considerable  confusion  has  been  created  in  assessing 
the  duty  on  these  goods  because,  being  a  new  line,  they  were  not 
taken  into  consideration  when  the  last  tariff  was  framed;  so  that 
some  of  them  have  been  coming  in  properly  under  paragraph  98. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  a  patented  article  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  The  patents  do  not  amount  to  anything.  There 
are  no  patents  on  the  principle,  only  on  each  individual  manufac- 
turer's design.  The  proper  classification  would  be  paragraph  98, 
but  we  found  where  some  people  were  bringing  them  in  under  para- 
graph 199,  by  claiming  that  the  chief  element  of  value  was  the  metal 
casing,  which  was  incorrect  in  both  cases,  and  we  brought  it  to  the 
attention  of  the  Treasury  Department. 

The  Treasury  Department  held,  after  considerable  correspondence 
with  me,  that  when  this  bottle  is  brought  in  without  its  metal  con- 
tainer it  should  be  entered  under  paragraph  98,  and  when  the  metal 
container  is  of  less  value  than  the  bottle  it  should  also  come  in  under 
paragraph  98;  but  when  they  put  that  bottle  into  a  fancy  case  they 
can  bring  it  in  at  45  per  cent  duty  under  paragraph  199  on  the  plea 
that  the  case  is  of  greater  value  than  the  Dottle. 

On  that  account,  I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  in  framing  a 
new  tariff  act  some  provision  be  made  for  these  bottles  to  prevent 
that  confusion. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  it  true  the  container  is  more  valuable  than  the 
bottle  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  Very  seldom.  In  rare  instances  the  container  is 
a  fancy,  elaborate  affair  that  is  worth  more  than  the  bottle;  but  I 
should  say  in  90  per  cent  of  the  cases  where  the  bottles  are  sold  the 
bottle  is  of  greater  value  than  the  container.  But  it  has  left  a  way 
open  for  fraud,  and  we  pointed  out  several  instances  of  fraud  to  the 
Government. 

On  that  account,  I  would  suggest  that  some  provision  be  made 
under  this  wording: 

Double-walled  glass  vessels,  bottle,  jar,  and  carafe  shaped,  either  silvered  or  unsil- 
vered,  or  silvered  and  evacuated,  dutiable  at  60  per  cent. 

That  would  cover  the  bottle  either  in  a  finished  or  partially 
finished  state. 

I  would  also  recommend  that  the  same  vessel,  when  contained  or 
mounted  in  a  container  of  metal  or  other  material,  be  dutiable  at 
the  same  rate. 

That  would  give  us  some  measure  of  protection.  As  it  stands  now, 
these  bottles  when  brought  in  at  60  per  cent  duty  can  undersell  us 
about  20  per  cent.  But  I  am  not  afraid  of  that,  "because  we  are  on 
the  ground,  we  can  go  after  the  business,  we  can  send  our  salesmen 
around  every  two  or  three  months  to  solicit  the  business  and  get  it. 
But  we  could  not  fight  foreign  competition  under  any  greater  handi- 
cap than  that. 

I  want  to  show  you  just  what  this  stuff  costs.  We  have  an  offer 
from  Germany,  as  1  have  said.  I  have  the  original  offer  in  my  pocket. 
This  offer  is  to  supply  us  with  a  pint  size  of  bottle,  ready  for  us  to  put 
into  the  container,  at  18  cents  in  Germany.  The  freight  and  duty, 
ah1  laid  down  in  Cincinnati,  would  make  that  thing  cost  us  about  30 

78959° — VOL  1 — 13 -IS 


754  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

cents  or  32  cents  all  complete;  possibly  it  might  be  33  cents  at  the 
outside.  It  would  not  be  over  33  cents,  but  it  would  probably  be 
32  cents. 

To  make  that  bottle — I  have  the  blank  from  which  we  make  the 
bottle,  made  in  New  Jersey,  and  I  pay  10£  cents  for  that  laid  down 
in  Cincinnati.  The  silver  and  the  actual  cost  of  the  labor,  without 
a  penny  of  overhead  expense,  cost  us  20  cents.  We  use  a  great  deal 
of  gas  in  that  work.  We  figure  that  the  gas  and  power  and  super- 
vision and  foremen  and  rent  and  insurance  cost  us  10  cents  on  that 
bottle.  That  makes  the  actual  cost  of  production  40.5  cents  in 
Cincinnati,  while  I  can  buy  it  laid  down  for  32  cents  from  Germany, 
taking  the  finished  bottle  as  it  goes  to  the  customer,  or  as  the  con- 
sumer buys  it. 

We  recently  found  these  bottles  coming  in  at  what  we  thought  was 
undervaluation,  and  I  brought  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment with  the  complaint  that  these  goods  were  being  undervalued, 
and  after  a  long  investigation  the  Treasury  Department  wrote  to  me 
at  Cincinnati,  under  date  of  August  3,  1912,  that  the  price  at  which 
these  finished  bottles,  in  metal  containers,  were  entered  for  duty  was 
the  actual  value  in  Germany.  That  price  was  38.5  cents. 

That  identical  bottle  cost  me  40.5  cents  to  make,  as  I  have  shown 
you,  for  the  bottle  alone;  the  container  and  the  overhead  expenses 
on  that  part  belonging  to  the  container  runs  the  cost  up  to  80  cents, 
without  any  selling  cost.  If  thoy  pay  38.5  cents  in  Germany  and  they 
pay  60  per  cent  duty  on  it  and  freight,  it  costs  them  64  cents  laid  down 
in  New  York. 

Under  those  conditions  we  thought  that  60  per  cent,  the  present 
duty,  is  not  excessive.  We  could  not  live  at  any  lower  rate  of  duty. 

I  made  the  statement  a  moment  ago  that  we  have  tried  it  to  see 
how  low  we  would  have  to  go  to  get  that  foreign  business.  I  have  here 
a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  largest  concern  in  Australia,  Anthony 
Hordern  &  Sons  (Ltd.),  the  concern  which  owns  the  largest  depart- 
ment stores  in  Melbourne  and  Sydney,  a  concern  capitalized  at 
£5,000,000.  Those  people  formerly  bought  our  goods,  and  quit  buy- 
ing them  about  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  Their  letter  is  dated  Sydney, 
November  25,  1912,  and  roads  as  follows: 

DEAR  SIRS:  Sample  bottle  advised  in  yours  of  19th  September  to  hand,  and  while 
of  satisfactory  manufacture  it  is  so  very  much  dearer  than  the  German  article  that  we 
could  not  entertain  your  proposal. 

That  was  a  try-out.  We  did  not  want  the  business  at  that  price 
but  we  wanted  to  see  how  low  we  would  have  to  go  to  get  business, 
and  we  figured  on  supplying  this  firm  with  the  goods  made  with 
material  imported  from  Germany,  on  which  we  could  claim  the 
drawback.  Therefore  our  raw  material  in  that  instance  would  cost 
us  the  same  as  the  German  manufacturer.  The  only  difference  in  cost 
would  be  the  labor  cost  and  the  cost  of  doing  business  in  this  country. 

I  will  explain  that.  I  am  paying  the  cheapest  glass  blower  that  I 
have  SI 5  a  week.  I  am  paving  my  best  man  $25  a  week.  I  have  to 
have  a  number  of  learners  coming  along.  The  cheapest  of  those 
receives  87  a  week,  and  after  they  have  been  with  us  five  or  six 
months  can  do  a  littlw  work  and  are  then  paid  from  $10  to  $11  a  week. 
It  takes  about  two  and  one-half  to  three  years  to  develop  that  man 


•  SCHEDULE   B.  755 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

into  a  real  glass  blower,  where  he  is  worth  $15  to  $18  per  week. 
Instead  of  using  that  kind  of  labor,  the  German  manufacturers,  who 
are  located  in  small  towns,  use  girls.  These  girls  work  11  hours  a 
day  and  receive  from  $4  to  $6  a  week,  according  to  their  scale. 

That  is  the  chief  reason  why  we  can  not  compete.  We  can  not  use 
that  kind  of  labor.  In  the  first  place,  you  could  not  get  an  American 
woman  to  go  and  do  the  work.  You  could  not  get  an  American 
woman  to  stand  over  a  great,  big  hot  flame,  that  is  about  that  long 
[indicating],  that  roars  like  a  cyclone  all  day,  and  work  in  that  heat; 
but  they  can  get  them  over  there,  and  they  get  them  cheap.  That 
is  what  we  have  to  compete  with. 

Mr.  LONGWOETH.  About  what  proportion  of  your  entire  cost  is 
labor  cost  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  I  have  shown  here  that  out  of  the  40  cents,  20 
cents  is  labor  paid  out  in  our  factory,  and  10  cents  is  what  we  pay  for 
the  blank.  That  glass  blank  is  almost  all  labor,  but  we  do  not  make 
that  glass  blank.  It  is  made  for  us  in  New  Jersey.  That  glass  blank, 
if  American  made,  is  with  high-priced  labor.  When  we  buy  that 
blank  from  Germany,  as  we  do  in  the  export  business,  we  pay  3.8 
cents  for  it. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Your  actual  factory  cost  is  how  much  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  My  actual  labor  cost  is  20  cents  out  of  the  40 
cents. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Fifty  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  Yes.  Out  of  the  40  cents,  I  pay  20  cents  in  actual 
labor.  Then  I  have  some  overhead  expense  to  be  added  to  that, 
which  is  not  included  in  this  20  cents.  That  overhead  includes  my 
foreman  and  superintendence.  I  should  say  that  is  another  5  cents: 
so  we  would  have,  as  a  fair  proposition,  that  my  labor  cost  is  25  cents 
out  of  the  40  cents. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  is  the  metal  of  the  container?  Of  what  metal  is 
it  made  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  About  half  of  the  containers  are  made  of  sheet 
steel  run  through  a  lithographing  process  like  these  ornamental  signs 
you  saw.  The  other  half  of  the  containers  are  brass  nickel  plated. 
These  brass  containers,  nickel  plated,  cost  just  about  the  same  as  the 
bottle.  I  will  give  it  to  you  exactly. 

One  of  my  brass  nickel-plated  containers  that  contains  a  40-cent 
filler  costs  me  40  cents.  The  fancy  containers  cost  me  42  cents.  So 
you  see  if  I  use  the  simple  brass  container  it  is  cheaper  than  the 
bottle,  but  if  I  use  the  fancy  one  it  costs  5  per  cent  more  than  the  glass 
lining. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  you  ever  made  a  careful  calculation  to  ascer- 
tain how  much  more  efficient  your  highly  paid  American  workman  is 
than  those  German  girls  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  I  am  very  sorry  to  say  that  at  the  present  time  it 
is  not  in  favor  of  our  men.  But  that  is  not  the  fault  of  the  men.  It 
is  due  to  the  newness  of  the  industry.  You  must  remember  these 
bottles  have  only  been  made  in  this  country  four  and  one-half  years. 
The  oldest  man  with  me  on  that  work  has  only  been  on  it  three  years. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  you  think  you  could  go  back  to  your  factory  and 
tell  your  American  workmen  that  they  are  not  as  efficient  as  the 
German  girls  ? 


756  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  We  have  had  German  workmen  over  here  to  teach 
our  American  workmen,  and  our  American  workmen  have  not  yet 
been  able  to  produce  in  a  day  or  in  an  hour  the  same  quantity  of  work 
that  our  German  teacher  produced  in  the  factory.  We  had  three 
Germans.  Two  of  them  we  had  as  teachers.  One  of  those  teachers 
produced  each  day  140  pieces,  and  he  worked  eight  hours  to  do  it. 
The  most  that  any  of  the  men  he  taught  can  produce  up  to  the  present 
time  is  110  similar  pieces  in  10  hours.  These  men  are  getting  a  little 
faster  each  week.  You  must  remember  that  the  Germans  I  had  had 
been  at  this  business  15  years.  These  men  that  we  have  have  only 
been  able  to  do  this  work  probably  successfully  a  year.  Up  to  that 
time  they  were  just  learning.  I  only  got  rid  of  my  German  teacher 
last  March. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  I  suppose  the  German  teacher  was  a  fair  average 
of  what  the  German  girls  can  do  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  I  can  only  give  you  the  word  of  the  teacher. 
The  teacher  told  me  the  girls  produced  the  same  as  the  men,  and  he 
said  he  left  Germany  because  he  would  not  compete  with  them. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  It  only  requires  lung  power,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  And  a  little  endurance. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  another  letter  from  Sydney,  Aus- 
tralia, from  the  firm  of  Arthur  Cocks  &  Co.,  dated  Sydney,  March 
18, 1912: 

We  are  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  6th  of  January  and  thank  you  for  your  proposition 
with  regard  to  the  "Icy-Hot"  products. 

We  have  gone  into  this  matter  and  can  not  see  our  way  clear  to  handle  these  goods, 
as  by  the  time  we  got  them  here,  with  the  heavy  duty  and  expenses,  the  goods  would 
be  too  expensive  for  us  to  do  anything  much  with,  as  tha  lines  that  are  selling  out 
here  are  of  a  similar  nature,  manufactured  in  Germany,  and  of  course  a  much  cheaper 
line.  However,  we  thank  you  for  your  offer,  and  perhaps  later  on  we  may  be  able  to 
do  something  in  another  direction. 

I  have  another  letter  here  from  Johannesburg,  dated  the  5th  of 
February,  1912,  from  Mr.  P.  B.  Findlay,  reading  as  follows: 

1  beg  to  own  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  14th  of  December,  and  am  obliged  for  your 
further  offer  to  me  to  handle  your  goods  as  your  agent.  I  have,  however,  definitely 
decided  not  to  go  further  into  this  business,  as  I  have  found  a  very  great  difficulty  in 
disposing  of  the  small  stock  of  samples  I  had  from  you  before;  have  in  fact  several  still 
on  hand  and  will  have  to  lose  money  to  get  rid  of  them  at  all. 

This  is  owing  to  the  keen  competition  between  the  English  and  German  houses, 
and  I  may  add  for  your  information  that  the  German  manufacturers  have  placed  a 
cheap  line  on  the  market  which  they  can  afford  to  sell  here  at  about  the  figure  you  ask 
for  your  product  in  the  States. 

I  have  endeavored  to  obtain  for  you  a  decent  house  to  take  up  your  product,  but  have 
failed  lor  the  reason  given  above. 

There  is  one  other  concern  here  from  which  I  have  a  letter  and  with 
which  I  dealt  for  a  great  many  years.  They  are  located  in  Kingston, 
Jamaica.  We  made  this  same  offer  to  these  people  that  we  made  to 
the  Australian  people,  and  they  being  in  a  different  quarter  of  the 
world,  it  shows  you  how  the}*  feel  about  it.  This  letter  is  from  John 
M.  Crosswell  &  Co.,  and  is  dated  the  17th  of  July,  1912: 

We  own  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  21st  ultimo,  which  only  reached  us  a  few  days 
ago.  contents  of  which  meet  with  our  attention. 

\Ye  thank  you  for  bringing  to  our  notice  and  also  observe  your  remarks  with  reference 
to  the  ayency  we  hold  for  your  article.  Our  only  regret  has  been  that  we  have  not 
been  able  to  pass  you  more  orders,  but  as  we  have  written  you  from  time  to  time,  both 
German.  English  and  other  makes  of  bottles  are  coming  here,  and  these  cost  consider- 


SCHEDULE   B.  757 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

ably  less  than  your  article,  hence  our  reason  for  not  being  able  to  compete  with  the 
other  houses. 

Whilst  we  are  willing,  and  have  done  everything  in  our  power,  yet  conditions  are 
such  that  we  have  been  unable  to  prevent  sales  against  your  make,  which,  as  already 
pointed  out,  costs  much  more  over  the  English  and  other  makes. 

That  is  the  way  we  are  up  against  it.  There  is  only  one  other 
suggestion  I  have  to  bring  to  your  notice,  and  that  is  this: 

These  goods  are  made  out  of  what  we  call  "glass  blanks."  There 
has  been  more  or  less  confusion  as  to  what  the  rate  of  duty  is  which 
these  glass  blanks  pay.  We  are  not  particularly  interested  hi  that 
except  in  an  indirect  way.  The  glass  blanks  are  at  the  present  time 
dutiable  at  60  per  cent.  But  if  there  is  any  alteration  in  the  tariff 
on  these  bottles  which  we  make,  we  think  the  duty  on  the  glass 
blanks  ought  to  come  down  to  at  least  compensate  for  it.  It  can 
not  compensate  much,  because  the  price  in  Germany  for  glass  blanks 
is  only  3.8  cents,  and  that  goes  to  make  a  40-cent  bottle;  but  still  it 
amounts  to  something.  Of  course  we  are  not  importing  stuff  for 
our  work  at  present.  We  are  buying  it  in  New  Jersey. 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  thank  you. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  How  many  men  make  these  bottles  here  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBEEG.  There  are  now  five  concerns  in  the  business. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  men  are  employed  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  Offhand,  I  should  say  500  men  and  boys.  I 
employ  50,  but  I  am  not  the  largest.  The  largest  is  the  offshoot  of 
the  great  German  concern  that  practically  dominates  the  markets 
of  the  world. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  they  pay  a  royalty  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  They  started  to  pay  them  a  royalty,  but  I  have 
heard,  though  I  can  not  verify  this,  that  they  have  since  paid  them 
a  sum  of  money  in  settlement  of  that  royalty  to  get  rid  of  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  Can  anybody  go  in  the  business  now  and  manufacture 
these  bottles  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  There  are  five  in  the  business  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  they  all  pay  a  royalty  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  No;  nobody  pays  a  royalty  except  that  one  com- 
pany which  was  established  here  by  the  parent  company  in  Germany 
as  an  Ameii-an  I  ranch,  and  then  they  took  in  American  capital, 
and  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  run  now.  Americans  are  running  it  at 
the  present  time.  They  and  the  German  company  work  very  closely 
together,  as  I  have  found  to  my  sorrow  several  times,  because  I  was 
shut  out  twice  from  the  purchase  of  material  by  the  German  com- 
panies pushing  in  and  offering  an  order  provided  the  people  would 
not  sell  to  me. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  You  think  as  your  workmen  become  more  skillful 
they  can  produce  more  bottles  per  day  ? 

Mr.  ALTEXBERG.  I  think  so,  after  they  become  more  skillful  that 
they  will  be  able  to  produce  more,  but  we  must  not  lose  sight  of 
the  fact  that  the  wage  scale  is  three  times  as  high  per  day.  I  do 
not  think  they  will  produce  more  than  the  Germans  do,  because  I 
must  say  those  people  work  very,  very  hard. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.  As  they  will  become  more  skillful  and  produce  more, 
then  you  will  need  less  and  less  tariff  ? 


758  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  In  time,  yes ;  but  as  we  are  situated  now,  we  have 
to  pay  from  $15  to  $25  a  week  to  an  operative  who  produces  less  than 
the  German  girl  produces  for  $4  to  $6. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  say  they  are  improving  every  week  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  They  are  improving  a  little  bit  right  along.  You 
can  form  your  own  conclusion.  It  has  taken  me  three  years  to  bring 
them  up  to  100  pieces  a  day,  while  the  German  produces  140  pieces 
in  20  per  cent  less  time.  In  other  words,  the  German  would  produce 
in  that  same  time  somewhere  about  170  pieces,  while  my  operative 
produces  100  pieces. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  proportion  of  the  number  of  bottles  consumed 
in  this  country  do  you  suppose  are  imported  ? 

Mr.  ALTENBERG.  That  is  a  very-hard  thing  to  get  at.  I  have  tried 
repeatedly  to  ascertain  that  fact.  I  find  them  in  Cincinnati,  I  find 
them  in  Iowa,  I  find  them  in  Kentucky  and  in  New  York  and  every- 
where ;  but  there  are  no  statistics  kept  by  the  Government  on  vacuum 
bottles.  I  have  no  way  to  get  at  it.  The  only  way  we  know  it  at  all 
is  from  the  traveling  salesmen,  when  they  write  in  from  Iowa  or 
Kansas  or  elsewhere,  "I  have  lost  an  order  because  the  party  bought 
the  German  bottles  on  account  of  their  being  cheaper."  We  are 
getting  that  "song"  a  little  too  often  now.  For  a  while  we  did  not 
care,  because  they  only  came  in  occasionally,  but  now  it  is  a  daily 
occurrence. 

I  desire  to  file  a  short  brief. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  file  that  with  the  clerk. 

BRIEF  OF  GEORGE   P.   ALTENBERG,   PRESIDENT  OF  THE   "Icy-HoT"   BOTTLE  Co., 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

In  re  tariff  hearings,  1913,  on  Schedule  B.  Earthenware  and  glassware.     Schedule  C. 
Metals  and  manufactures  of  metals. 

Glass  vacuum  bottles,  being  one  glass  bottle  on  the  inside  of  another  with  a  vacuum 
between  and  silvered  and  either  encased  in  a  metal  or  other  casing,  or  unencased, 
dutiable  at  60  per  cent  under  paragraph  98,  and  at  45  per  cent  under  paragraph  99 
of  the  present  tariff  act  when  the  casing  is  of  greater  value  than  the  glass. 

The  Treasury  Department  has  held  that  glass  vacuum  bottles,  when  not  in  their 
casing,  are  dutiable  at  GO  per  cent  under  paragraph  98  of  the  present  tariff  act,  and 
when  completed,  as  usually  used,  encased  in  a  metal  casing,  then  if  the  metal  casing 
is  the  chief  element  of  value,  they  are  dutiable  at  45  per  cent  under  paragraph  199  and 
when  the  casing  is  of  least  value  they  are  dutiable  at  60  per  cent  under  paragraph  98. 

Three  elements  of  value  enter  into  consideration: 

(1)  The  glass  vacuum  bottle  itself  (not  encased). 

(2)  The  glass  vacuum  bottle  when  contained  in  an  inexpensive  metal  container. 

(3)  The  glass  vacuum  bottle  when  in  a  nickel-plated  container. 

When  this  bott  le  is  in  a  cheap  metal  container,  the  glass  is  the  chief  element  of  value, 
and  therefore  is  dutiable  at  60  per  cent. 

When  ihis  bottle  is  encased  in  a  nickel-plated  container,  then  the  metal  casing  is 
the  chief  element  of  value,  and  therefore  the  completed  article  is  dutiable  at  45  per 
cent  under  paragraph  199. 

The  blanks,  or  bottle-shaped  containers  of  blown  flint  glass  from  which  the  glass 
vacuum  bottle  itself  is  made,  are  also  dutiable  under  paragraph  98  at  60  per  cent. 
Heretofore  much  confusion  has  arisen  in  assessing  the  duty  on  these  goods,  either  in 
their  completed  or  uncompleted  state,  and  we  therefore  recommend  that  a  special 
paragraph  be  allotted  to  glass  vacuum  bottles,  jars  and  carafes,  and  that  said  paragraph 
should  specify  these  articles  in  the  following  language: 

(a)  Double- walled  glass  vessels,  bottle,  jar  and  carafe  shaped,  either  silvered  or 
unsilvered,  or  silvered  and  evacuated,  dutiable  at  60  per  cent. 

(6)  The  same  vessels  when  contained  or  mounted  in  a  container  of  metal  or  other 
material,  dutiable  at  60  per  cent. 


SCHEDULE  B.  759 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

This  is  a  new  industry,  having  been  started  in  this  country  about  four  and  a  half 
years  ago,  and  the  American  production  we  estimate  at  about  $600,000  per  year.  We 
have  no  means  of  judging  the  amount  of  imports  at  the  present  time.  The  estimate 
as  to  the  domestic  production  is  based  on  our  own  output  and  that  of  our  competitors. 

Our  reasons  for  suggesting  that  the  tariff  be  maintained  as  now,  at  60  per  cent, 
and  that  it  be  made  to  cover  the  luxurious  fancv  bottles  in  nickel-plated  cases  as 
well  as  <he  cheaper  ones,  is  that  these  goods  are  largely  manufactured  in  Germany, 
where  they  can  be  produced  for  about  one-half  the  cost  of  production  in  this  country. 
To  prove  this,  we  cite  the  following  facts:  The  Hon.  F.  M.  Halstead,  chief  of  the 
division  of  Office  of  Customs  of  the  United  States  Treasury  Department  held  in  his 
letter  of  August  3,  1912,  to  the  Icy-Hot  Bottle  Co.,  that  38$  cents  would  cover  the  full 
market  value  in  Germany  of  a  pint  glass  vacuum  bottle  in  a  substantial  metal  casing 
submitted  to  him  for  consideration,  that  being  the  price  at  which  the  German  manu- 
facturer had  sold  the  goods  to  the  American  merchant.  It  is  wholly  impossible  to 
manufacture  the  same  article  in  this  country  and  sell  it  under  actual  cost  of  80  cents. 
This  would  not  include  any  profit  for  the  American  manufacturer,  but  would  rep- 
resent his  actual  cost. 

In  substantiation  of  this  claim  we  cite  the  following: 

The  pint  glass  vacuum  bottle  is  manufactured  from  two  blanks  of  glass,  for  which 
our  company  is  now  paying  10$  cents,  including  freight,  from  Vineland,  N.  J.,  to 
Cincinnati,  where  the  glass  vacuum  bottle  is  constructed  out  of  these  blanks.  The 
German  manufacturers  pay  for  these  same  blanks  in  Germany  the  sum  of  3.8  cents. 
We  use  skilled  men,  commanding  high  wages,  to  do  the  work,  while  the  German 
manufacturers  employ  women  at  less  than  one-fourth  the  wages  we  are  compelled  to 
pay  to  men. 

It  is  now  possible  to  purchase  any  vacuum  bottle  in  Germany,  whether  completed 
in  its  metal  casing  or  simply  the  finished  filler,  at  less  than  one-half  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction in  this  country.  A  German  manufacturer  on  November  8  last  offered  1o 
supply  us  with  completed  but  unmounted  silvered  and  evacuated  vacuum  bottles 
at  18  cents  each  for  pints  and  36  cents  each  for  quarts. 

As  above  stated  we  pay  10$  cents  for  the  raw  material,  from  which  we  manufacture 
the  same.  The  silver  and  labor  cost  at  least  20  cents,  to  which  must  be  added  power, 
gas,  and  overhead  expenses  of  not  less  than  10  cents,  making  a  total  cost  to  us  of  at  least 
40$  cents,  unmounted  in  any  casing,  when  made  in  our  own  factory  in  Cincinnati. 
This  figure  does  not  take  into  consideration  any  selling  expense  or  profit  to  ourselves. 
We  are  quite  willing  to  prove  the  accuracy  of  these  figures  and  to  submit  our  books  to 
the  inspection  of  any  expert.  This  same  percentage  holds  good  with  reference  to  the 
larger  sizes. 

In  further  substantiation  of  the  request  that  the  duty  be  retained  at  60  per  cent,  we 
submit  herewith  and  attach  hereto  a  number  of  letters  received  from  foreign  countries 
informing  us  that  the  German  manufacturers  are  underbidding  us  so  that  in  these  mar- 
kets our  goods  can  not  be  sold.  This,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  for  the  foreign 
sales,  we  have  been  importing  German  blanks  and  collecting  a  drawback  of  the  im- 
port duty  when  the  goods  were  reexported,  thus  showing  that  even  when  we  obtain  the 
raw  material  at  the  price  the  Germans  pay  for  it,  our  high  cost  of  labor  and  all  the  other 
high  expenses  of  doing  business,  increase  our  prices  to  such  a  figure  that  we  can  not 
compete. 

Bottle  shaped  containers  of  blown  glass,  dutiable  at  60  per  cent,  under  paragraph  98. — We 
claim  that  the  blanks  brought  in  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  them  into  glass  vac- 
uum bottles,  should  not  be  classified  as  above,  but  should  be  either  admitted  as  flint 
glass  bottles  or  a  separate  paragraph  allotted  them  in  the  tariff  act,  and  that  the  duty 
on  the  same  should  be  made  materially  less  than  the  duty  on  the  finished  vacuum 
bottle  whether  mounted  in  its  casing  or  unmounted.  These  blanks  are  essentially 
a  raw  material  and  can  only  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  vacuum  bottles 
out  of  them  at  a  very  large  expense  of  labor. 

We  therefore  suggest  that  a  special  paragraph  be  devoted  to  these  articles  and  request 
that  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  be  not  more  than  one-half  the  duty  on  the  finished 
product.  Therefore  we  recommend  that  a  special  paragraph  be  allotted  to  these, 
which  might  be  in  the  form  of  a  section  to  the  paragraphs  above  recommended,  and 
should  be  worded  as  follows: 

"Blown  glass  containers,  either  bottle,  jar,  or  carafe  shaped,  intended  for  the  manu- 
facture of  vacuum  bottles,  dutiable  at  30  per  cent." 


760  TABIPF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AMD  GLASSWARE. 

E.  A.  AGAED,  OF  FAIEBTJEY,  ILL.,  ASKS    THAT    THE    PRESENT 
DUTY  ON  GLASS  BOTTLES  BE  RETAINED. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  MEMBERS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE: 

In  November,  1908,  when  Schedule  B  was  under  consideration  by  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  I  appeared  before  that  body  to  urge  that  there  should  be  no  reduc- 
tion in  the  duty  upon  the  importation  of  glass  bottles,  and  I  now  appear  before  this 
committee  for  a  like  purpose,  and  again  most  respectfully  present  for  your  considera- 
tion the  proposition  that  any  reduction  in  the  duty  upon  glass  bottles  would  benefit 
only  a  few  importers  and  large  brewing  and  distilling  interests  who,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  importers,  are  not  seeking  this  advantage;  would  not  reduce  by  a  single  cent 
the  cost  of  living  to  the  ultimate  consumer,  the  public;  would  seriously  affect  the 
American  manufacturer,  and  work  irreparable  injury  to  the  American  workman. 

The  magnitude  of  the  glass-bottle  industry  of  this  country  is  sufficient  to  justify 
me  in  asking  for  its  continued  protection.  I  am  unable  to  give  you  even  approxi- 
mately the  amount  of  capital  invested.  But  the  business  is  done  by  about  150  con- 
cerns, employing  50,000  workmen,  about  14,000  of  whom  are  highly  skilled  artisans, 
and  whose  annual  production  amounts  to  upwards  of  $50,000,000,  and  in  presenting 
the  case  of  the  American  manufacturer  and  workman  to  you  to-day,  I  would  do  so 
with  the  same  brief  and  argument  and  in  the  same  way  that  I  did  to  the  committee 
four  years  ago,  as  I  find  upon  careful  investigation  that  the  conditions  are  practically 
the  same  now  as  then. 

We  have  had  at  least  one  bitter  experience  with  a  tariff  which  failed  to  approxi- 
mately equalize  the  cost  between  the  home  and  the  foreign  manufacture. 

The  tariff  acts  of  1883  and  1890  were  such  a  stimulus  to  the  industry  that  within 
that  period  the  number  of  men  employed  in  the  production  of  glass  bottles  increased 
more  than  threefold,  and  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in  this  business  was  corre- 
spondingly increased. 

The  tariff  law  of  1894,  known  as  the  Wilson  bill,  which  went  into  effect  August  27, 
1894,  dealt  us  a  blow  from  which  we  were  years  in  recovering.  During  all  of  the 
time  this  act,  which  reduced  the  duty  on  glass  bottles  from  17  to  40  per  cent  and 
in  some  cases  nearly  one-half,  was  in  operation  the  business  was  in  a  terribly  demoral- 
ized condition.  Many  furnaces  remained  out  of  blast  the  entire  time,  others  were 
only  operated  a  part  of  the  time,  several  were  permanently  abandoned,  and  only  a 
few  establishments,  in  the  interior  of  the  country  and  far  removed  from  seaports  and 
closely  adjacent  to  the  purchaser,  were  able  to  run  with  any  degree  of  regularity.  It 
was  a  grim  and  bitter  struggle  for  existence  that  taxed  the  intelligence,  patience, 
ingenuity,  skill,  and  financial  resources  of  employer  and  employee  alike  to  the  utmost. 

After  the  most  rigid  and  economical  methods  of  production  and  distribution  had 
been  adopted  there  still  remained  so  wide  a  difference  between  the  cost  of  production 
of  bottles  in  this  country  and  the  cost  of  production  in  Europe  that  we  were  forced  to  ask 
our  men  to  increase  their  hours  of  labor,  in  an  effort  to  meet  the  situation  and  stem  the 
tide  and  flood  of  importation.  This  failing  to  meet  the  situation  and  we  being  unable 
to  hold  our  own  against  foreign  competition,  we  were  finally  reluctantly  compelled 
to  ask  our  employees  to  come  to  our  assistance  by  accepting  a  reduction  in  wages  of 
from  15  to  25  per  cent.  Our  labor  is  highly  skilled  and  intelligent,  but  a  proposition 
of  this  character,  which  would  reduce  their  standard  of  life  and  living  below  the 
comfort  line,  met  with  the  most  determined  opposition  from  them.  They  were  slow 
to  grasp  the  gravity  of  the  situation  with  which  we  were  confronted  and  to  realize 
that  our  very  industrial  lifp  was  at  stake,  and  for  a  time  refusing  to  meet  the  unpleas- 
ant crisis  in  the  only  way  possible,  strikes  and  labor  disputes,  with  all  their  attendant 
heartburnings,  misunderstandings,  and  disturbances,  ensued,  until  a  fuller  appre- 
ciation of  our  unhappy  plight  was  reluctantly  borne  home  to  them,  and  they  went 
to  work,  where  employment  could  be  secured,  at  the  reduced  wage. 

In  the  manufacture  of  glass  bottles  nearly  all  of  the  cost  lies  in  the  wages  paid  to 
labor,  the  material  of  which  the  glass  is  composed — lime,  sand,  and  soda — being  of 
small  value,  except  for  the  necessary  labor  expended  upon  it,  so  that  any  reduction 
in  the  tariff  upon  bottles  must  fall  most  heavily  upon  the  workers,  who  will  quickly 
and  fiercely  resent  any  attempt  to  take  from  them  or  to  reduce  the  value  of  the  only 
thing  they  have  to  sell — that  is,  their  brawn  and  skill.  And  who  will  say  that  their 
position  is  not  a  natural,  a  logical,  and  a  proper  one?  Certainly  the  people  and  the 
business  interests  of  this  country  can  not  fail  to  be  injured  by  anything  that  reduces 
the  purchasing  power  of  a  large  number  of  individuals  and  that  brings  upon  us  wide- 
spread labor  disturbances  and  strife,  which  we  are  seeking  in  this  instance  to  avoid. 


SCHEDULE   B.  761 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  European  manufacturers  have  such  an  overwhelming  advantage  in  the  way  of 
cheaper  production — that  is,  cheaper  labor — that  they  can  put  their  product  on  the 
American  market  at  a  price  that  is  simply  impossible  for  the  American  manufacturer 
to  meet  without  a  tariff  high  enough  to  be  protective.  Indeed,  if  glass  bottles  were 
admitted  free  of  duty,  it  would,  in  my  opinion,  mean  the  extinction  of  the  business 
in  this  country. 

The  reduction  of  the  import  duty  will  not,  in  this  case,  as  I  have  said  before,  benefit 
the  general  public,  who,  in  the  last  analysis,  is  the  consumer.  Upon  the  contrary,  it 
will  result  in  a  direct  and  permanent  injury  to  the  general  public,  by  reason  of  the 
closing  of  many  plants,  with  the  dispersing  and  scattering  of  large  bodies  of  skilled 
workmen  and  the  reduction  of  the  purchasing  power  of  all  of  those  identified  with  this 
business,  even  if  some  of  the  factories  should  be  able  to  continue  in  operation.  If  the 
price  of  bottles  was  reduced  to  the  brewer,  the  bottler,  and  to  the  great  establishments 
of  so-called  patent  and  proprietary  medicines,  what  possible  benefit  can  the  con- 
sumer derive  from  that?  Beer,  mineral  water,  and  patent  medicines  will  still  sell  at 
retail  at  the  same  price,  and  even  the  bottler  would  not  be  benefited,  as  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  business  would  have  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  a  large  number  of  former 
consumers  to  purchase  the  product  of  the  bottler.  A  single  illustration,  to  which  I 
call  your  attention,  will  illustrate  my  meaning. 

Warner's  Safe  Cure,  which  is  a  patent  medicine,  costs  at  retail  $1  per  bottle,  equal 
to  $144  per  gross.  The  cost  of  a  gross  of  bottles  laid  down  in  Rochester,  N.  Y..  is  about 
$4,  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  total  cost.  Suppose  by  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  the 
price  of  bottles  is  reduced  to  $3  per  gross,  making  the  cost  to  the  medicine  $143  per 
gross,  what  possible  chance  is  there  for  the  retail  buyer,  the  general  public,  to  get  any 
benefit  from  the  reduced  price,  which  is  less  than  1  cent  per  bottle? 

The  European  manufacturer  has  another  great  advantage  over  the  American  manu- 
facturer in  the  fact  that  he  can  and  does  operate  his  plant  12  months  in  the  year,  while 
in  this  country  we  are  forced  to  close  our  glass  factories  during  the  months  of  July  and 
August,  and  in  some  cases  both  the  months  of  June  and  September,  these  months  being 
altogether  too  hot  for  the  operation  of  our  plants  to  be  profitable.  The  fore  gn  manu- 
facturer erects  a  furnace  and  operates  it  continuously  until  it  is  burned  out,  which 
may  be  a  couple  of  years,  and  then  closes  down  to  repair  or  rebuild.  In  this  country 
a  tank  furnace  will  cost  about  $20,000.  and  after  being  operated  from  7  to  10 
months  must  be  closed  because  the  weather  has  become  too  hot  to  permit  its  operation. 
The  putting  out  of  the  fires  in  a  glass  furnace  means  its  practical  destruction,  and  it 
must  be  rebuilt  before  it  can  be  again  operated,  so  that  in  the  item  of  furnaces  alone 
the  cost  of  the  American  manufacturer  is  more  than  double  that  of  his  foreign  com- 
petitor. 

The  following  will  show  the  cost  of  the  standard  sizes  of  beer  and  water  bottles  in 
Germany,  taken  from  statistics,  and  the  cost  of  production  of  the  same  class  of  ware 
in  this  country . 

Cost  of  making  a  gross  of  pint  and  quart  beer  and  water  bottles  in  Germany:  Labor, 
salaries,  and  blowing,  65  cents;  fuel,  material,  boxing,  and  supplies,  $1.05;  total  cost 
of  production,  $1.70. 

The  average  cost  of  making  bottles  in  this  country  of  the  same  kind  is  slightly  in 
excess  of  $3  per  gross,  a  difference  in  favor  of  the  German  manufacturer  of  $1.35  per 
gross. 

I  have  not  the  exact  figures  giving  cost  of  production  of  glass  bottles  in  England; 
but  I  do  know  that  it  is  more  than  $1  per  gross  less  than  the  cost  in  this  country  upon 
pint  and  quart  beers,  water  bottles,  and  goods  of  that  character. 

The  English  manufacturer  is  offering  to  deliver  free  on  board  ship  quart  beer  and 
water  bottles,  packed  in  cases  of  1  gross  each,  at  $3.63  per  gross;  pints  at  $2.89  per 
gross,  less  2£  per  cent  discount  if  payment  is  made  in  30  days  after  delivery,  while  the 
German  manufacturer  is  selling  quart  beer  and  water  bottles  in  the  ports  of  Mexico  for 
$2  per  gross,  the  buyer  paying  the  tariff  and  freight  from  port  of  delivery  to  interior 
destination,  and  the  same  can  be  done  here. 

As  indicating  the  fact  that  our  idea  that  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  upon  bottles  can  not 
prove  other  than  injurious  to  us  is  well  founded,  I  feel  that  I  can  not  do  better  than  to 
quote  from  the  report  of  an  investigation  made  by  the  president  of  the  Glass  Bottle 
Blowers'  Association  during  the  time  that  the  Wilson  bill  was  in  operation,  to  wit, 
during  the  month  of  April,  1896,  he  having  visited  San  Francisco,  Gal.,  upon  business 
connected  with  his  office,  and  while  there  investigated  the  importations  at  that  port 
alone.  He  said: 

"Finding  it  very  difficult  to  get  information  at  the  customhouse  at  San  Francisco, 
Cal.,  I  went  to  the  office  of  the  San  Francisco  Call  and  solicited  the  aid  of  the  commer- 


762  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

cial  reporter  of  that  paper.     He  kindly  agreed  to  help  me,  and  we  went  down  to  the 
customhouse  together  and  secured  the  following  data  on  importation,  viz:" 

Quart  bottles  filled  with  wine — I  may  say  right  here  that  the  reason  the  importation 
of  bottles  filled  ia  given  is  that  they  come  into  direct  competition  with  empty  bottles 
here.  They  are  emptied  here  and  then  thrown  on  the  market. 

Quarter  ending  Dec.  31,  1895:  Pounds. 

Bottles  filled  with  wine 374,  832 

Bottles  filled  with  brewed  stuff,  medicines,  liquor,  etc 90,  062 

Empty  bottles,  beers,  wines,  clarets,  water  bottles 99, 396 

Empty  demijohns 35,  695 

Quarter  ending  Mar.  31,  1896: 

Quart  bottles  filled  with  wine 313,  750 

Pint  bottles  filled  with  wine 

Filled  with  liquor,  medicines,  etc 127,  576 

Empty  bottles,  beers,  clarets,  water  bottles,  etc 1,  625, 331 

Empty  demijohns 39,  958 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  goods  were  imported  to  San  Francisco  and  do  not 
include  importations  at  Los  Angeles  and  San  Diego. 

"The  general  manager  of  the  bottling  department  of  the  National  Brewing  Co.  said: 
'  We  can  purchase  imported  beer  bottles  cheaper  than  the  home  goods  can  be  put  on  the 
market.'  Mr.  Deberry,  superintendent  of  the  bottling  department  of  the  United 
Brewing  Co.,  claims  that  it  is  solely  a  matter  of  cheapness  with  them  in  handling  the 
foreign  goods.  'We  can,'  he  said,  'purchase  the  imported  goods  much  cheaper  than 
the  home  article,  although  we  find  the  eastern  and  homemade  bottles  capable  of  sus- 
taining a  greater  pressure  than  the  foreign  bottles.' 

"On  April  11,  1896,  I  visited  the  docks,  and  to  my  surprise  I  saw  three  large  Ant- 
werp and  Hamburg  ships  unloading  cargoes  of  beer  bottles,  wines,  sodas,  clarets,  etc. 
These  goods  are  shipped  in  crates  and  sacks,  and  all  three  ships  were  unloading  at  the 
wharf  m  the  port  of  San  Francisco  on  the  same  day,  and  I  think  you  will  agree  with 
me  in  saying  it  was  a  sickening  sight  to  behold. 

"There  are  1,200  grocers  in  San  Francisco.  They  are  well  organized  and  all  handle 
demijohns  of  wine,  and  mostly  imported  bottles.  I  interviewed  a  member  of  the 
grocery  men's  association,  and  he  informed  me  that  he  did  not  know  that  they  were 
using  the  foreign  bottles  and  could  not  tell  an  imported  bottle  from  one  made  in  this 
country." 

The  statistics  sent  out  monthly  by  the  Treasury  Department  giving  the  value  of 
imports  of  this  line  of  goods  from  the  date  of  the  introduction  of  the  Wilson  bill, 
August  27,  1894,  to  October  31,  1896,  are  as  follows: 

Bottles,  vials,  demijohns,  and  carboys,  $1,024,401. 

And  be  it  remembered  that  during  the  time  that  this  enormous  importation  of 
glass  bottles  was  being  made  American  plants  were  lying  idle,  and  should  any  reduc- 
tion or  change  in  the  present  schedule  upon  bottles  be  made  a  like  condition  of  affairs 
would  speedily  prevail. 

The  glass-bottle  business  of  this  countrv  is  not  a  small  one,  and  unworthy  of  your 
consideration,  but  millions  of  capital  and"  thousands  of  men  are  actively  engaged  in 
this  enterprise. 

The  greatest  and  the  gravest  problem  confronting  Europe  to-day  is  the  problem 
of  their  unemployed.  Men  a  long  time  out  of  work,  hungry  men  with  hungry  families, 
are  not  wise  and  will  not  listen  to  reason.  That  is  the  philosophical  reasoning  of  the 
high  salaried  and  the  well  fed.  A  reduction  of  the  tariff  upon  glass  bottles  will  lessen 
the  menace  confronting  Europe  by  putting  a  large  number  of  their  unemployed  to 
work  and  will  transfer  their  trouble  to  your  shoulders  by  closing  our  factories  and 
reducing  our  capital,  our  investments,  and  our  men  to  idleness,  with  all  of  the  social, 
economic,  and  industrial  ills  that  follow  in  the  wake  of  idle  capital  and  idle  men, 
or  it  will  force  a  reduction  in  wa.^es  to  just  the  amount  that  the  tariff  might  be  reduced. 
The  manufacturer  has  reduced  the  cost  of  production  and  distribution  in  this  country 
to  the  last  final  fraction  that  it  is  possible  to  attain  without  scaling  down  the  wages 
of  every  person  whom  he  may  employ.  And  the  day  that  Congress  passes  any  tariff 
bill  reducing  the  duty  upon  bottles  that  day  they  say  positively  and  unequivocally 
to  the  American  workman  "  We  have  not  considered  your  interests  and  so  have  reduced 
your  income,  the  fruits  of  your  toil,  by  just  the  amount  that  we  have  reduced  the 
import  duty,"  and  the  workman  stands  with  sinking  heart  confronting  the  "horrid 
front"  of  a  lower  standard  of  living,  fewer  pleasures,  and  shorter  life  for  his  wife; 
less  education  and  fewer  opportunities  for  his  boys  and  girls,  whose  advantages, 
opportunities,  and  character  should  be  the  greatest  concern  of  every  lawmaker  and 
lawgiver  of  this  country. 


SCHEDULE   B.  763 

PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

BRIEF    SUBMITTED    BY    UNITED     STATES    INCANDESCENT 
LAMP  CO.  ON  BULBS  FOR  ELECTRIC  LAMPS. 

To  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives: 

The  United  States  Incandescent  Lamp  Co.,  in  whose  behalf  this  memorandum 
is  prepared  and  submitted,  is  owned  entirely  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Ferguson.  Mr.  Ferguson 
is  an  independent  and  has  no  connections  of  any  kind  with  any  other  lamp 
manufacturer. 

There  is  now,  and  for  many  months  has  been,  a  tariff  of  60  per  cent  on  glass  bulbs. 
The  Incandescent  Lamp  Co.,  as  an  independent  manufacturer  of  lamps,  submits  that 
this  tariff  should  be  entirely  removed  or  greatly  reduced.  A  statement  of  a  few  of 
the  salient  facts  with  reference  to  the  industry  will  show  the  necessity  for  this 
reduction. 

SCOPE    OF   THE   INDUSTRY. 

In  round  numbers,  100,000,000  bulbs  are  consumed  in  the  United  States  annually. 
This  approximation  is  arrived  at  thus:  In  1911  the  Department  of  Justice  filed  a  bill 
in  equity  against  the  lamp  trust,  and,  among  other  things,  alleged  that  80,000,000 
electric  lamps  were  made  and  sold  in  the  United  States  in  1910.  This  allegation 
was  admitted  by  the  defendants.  If  we  estimate  the  annual  increase  at  from  10  to  12 
per  cent  (which  is  very  conservative),  we  have  the  basis  for  the  foregoing  estimate. 

BULB    MANUFACTURERS. 

These  bulbs  are  manufactured  by  three  concerns,  to  wit,  The  Libbey  Glass  Works, 
Toledo,  Ohio,  Corning  Glass  Works,  Corning,  N.  Y.,  and  The  General  Electric  Co. 

The  reason,  or,  at  least,  one  of  the  reasons,  why  there  are  no  other  bulb  manufac- 
turers is  because  of  the  fact  that  since  1902  The  General  Electric  Co.  and  The  West- 
inghouse  Co.  have  had  a  practical  monopoly  of  bulb  consumption.  Those  two  con- 
cerns together  control  at  least  95  per  cent  of  the  total  business  in  electric  lamps,  and 
they  have,  by  agreement,  confined  their  purchases  to  the  manufacturers  named. 
Outside  of  these  concerns  the  demand  for  bulbs  has  not  been  sufficiently  large  and 
regular  to  induce  the  starting  of  factories  for  making  bulbs,  although  it  will  appear  in 
what  follows  that  the  profits  are  large. 

In  addition  to  this  there  has  been  for  years  a  standing  agreement  or  understanding 
between  Libbey  and  Corning  on  the  one  part  and  Macbeth,  of  Pittsburgh,  on  the  other 
that  the  former  shall  not  make  lamp  chimneys  and  the  latter  shall  not  make  bulbs. 
Thus  by  contract  and  a  monopolistic  control  the  bulb  industry  is  dominated  by  The 
General  Electric  Co.  and  Westinghouse. 

WHAT   THE   TARIFF   REALLY   PROTECTS. 

The  prices  charged  by  the  Libbey  and  Corning  Companies  are  the  same  and  have 
been  for  years.  There  is  no  real  competition  between  them. 

For  standard  size  bulbs,  such  as  are  used  in  making  the  lamps  like  those  in  the  offices 
of  Members  of  Congress,  the  independent  lamp  makers  are  charged  $18  per  thousand. 
These  standard-size  bulbs  comprise  perhaps  75  per  cent  of  the  total  sales  and  for  this 
reason  are  taken  as  means  of  comparison.  It  is  openly  stated  by  Libbey  and  Corning 
that  these  same  bulbs  are  sold  to  the  General  Electric  Co.  at  $16  per  thousand;  whether 
there  are  unannounced  rebates  and  concessions  from  this  published  price  the  writer 
of  this  memorandum  can  not  say.  But  the  difference  in  price,  which  is  admitted, 
amounts  to  12£  per  cent;  if  extended  to  all  items  of  cost  this  margin  would  soon  prove 
a  decisive  advantage  to  the  General  Electric  Co. 

The  asserted  justification  for  this  discrimination  is  the  larger  volume  of  the  General 
Electric  Co.'s  purchases.  But  we  must  consider  that  the  General  Electric  Co.  manu- 
factures a  large  part  of  its  own  bulbs:  it  has  four  plants  now  in  operation  and  is  con- 
stantly increasing  its  bulb  output.  Every  day  it  is  broadening  the  scope  of  its  com- 
petition with  Libbey  and  Corning.  The  independent  lamp  makers  have  never  made 
their  own  bulbs  but  have  always  purchased  them  exclusively  from  Libbey  and  Cor- 
ning, as  indeed  they  must.  If  those  concerns  were  free  to  make  prices,  undoubtedly 
they  would  encourage  the  independent  lamp  makers  from  whom,  if  from  anyone, 
their  patronage  in  the  future  must  come.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  General  Electric  Co. 
is  preparing  to  render  itself  no  longer  dependent  on  Libbey  and  Corning  for  a  supply. 
The  real  reason  why  the  independent  lamp  makers  are  placed  at  a  disadvantage  is 


764  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

because  of  the  influence  and  power  of  the  General  Electric  Co.  and  Westinghouse  over 
the  bulb  manufacturers.  Practically  speaking,  the  independent  lamp  producers,  for 
their  supply  of  bulbs,  are  at  the  mercy  of  their  powerful  and  ferocious  rivals.  It  needs 
no  argument  to  convince  this  committee  that  since  the  General  Electric  Co.  and  the 
Westinghouse  purchase,  say,  90  per  cent  of  the  output  of  Libbey  and  Corning,  they  also 
can  anal  do  influence  and  determine  the  policy,  conditions,  and  prices  on  which  the  two 
bulb  manufacturers  supply  the  independents  with  the  remaining  10  per  cent.  And 
the  discrimination  may  operate  in  many  ways  in  addition  to  that  of  price.  It  may  be 
concealed  in  the  form  of  delay  shipments,  poor  boxing,  bad  selections  of  bulbs.  And 
it  is  in  the  power  of  the  bulb  houses  to  inform  the  General  Electric  Co.  just  how  many 
and  what  types  of  bulbs  are  being  purchased  by  the  independents.  This  enables  the 
trust  to  know  at  all  times  just  what  outsiders  are  doing.  I  say  the  bulb  makers  have  it 
in  their  power  to  give  this  information  and  it  is  to  their  interest,  they  have  a  motive 
for  giving  it.  Where  power  and  interest  coincide,  activity  usually  follows. 

EXORBITANT   PRICES. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  the  General  Electric  Co.  has  four  bulb  plants  of  its 
own.  It  certainly  would  not  have  gone  into  the  manufacture  of  bulbs  unless  it  knew 
that  a  substantial  saving  in  the  cost  of  materials  would  thereby  be  realized. 

Undoubtedly  it  can  and  does  make  bulbs  at  a  cost  to  it  far  below  the  prevailing 
prices  and  it  continues  to  purchase  of  Libbey  and  Corning,  to  fortify  and  perpetuate 
its  monopoly  of  the  lamp  business  by  taking  away  the  inducement  of  the  bulb  makers 
to  make  lower  prices  to  outsiders.  If  it  should  cease  to  purchase  from  Libbey  and 
Corning,  it  is  obvious  those  concerns  must  go  into  the  lamp  business  themselves  or 
stimulate  others  to  do  so.  This  could  only  be  done  by  offering  bulbs  at  a  price  com- 
parable to  what  they  cost  the  General  Electric  Co.  and  Westinghouse. 

Taking  the  standard  size  bulb  again  as  an  illustration,  as  before  stated,  Libbey 's 
and  Coming's  price  to  outsiders  is  $18  per  thousand.  But  in  addition  they  charge 
on  an  average  about  $2  per  thousand  for  boxes.  Importers  at  the  present  time  are 
offering  to  deliver  the  same  bulbs  at  New  York,  the  60  per  cent  duty  paid  at  $16,  and 
they  make  no  charge  for  boxes.  Here,  then,  importers  offer  the  bulbs  at  $4  per  thou- 
sand below  Libbey  and  Corning  and  at  the  same  time  assume  a  duty  of  60  per  cent. 
On  larger  size  bulbs  the  duty  is  prohibitive  and  renders  the  cost  above  that  of  the 
American  producers,  high  as  it  is,  and  as  to  these  outside  lamp  concerns  have  no  choice 
but  must  buy  of  Libbey  and  Corning. 

Now,  what  is  the  cost  of  producing  these  bulbs?  When  anything  is  said  about 
lowering  the  tariff  a  great  cry  is  raised  in  the  name  of  the  American  laborer.  Fortu- 
nately we  know  in  this  instance  precisely  what  part  of  the  $18  goes  to  the  workingman. 
The  wage  scale  of  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers  Union  is  now  in  force  at  the 
Libbey  Glass  Works.  From  this  we  learn  that  the  total  cost  of  labor  in  a  thousand 
bulbs  is  87.25.  The  material  is  glass  only.  The  bulb  makers  pay  the  lamp  makers 
1  cent  per  pound  for  the  glass  of  broken  bulbs.  A  thousand  bulbs  contain  about  125 
pounds  of  glass,  which  is  worth  $1.25,  so  that  the  total  cost  of  labor  and  materials  in  a 
thousand  bulbs  sold  for  $18  can  not  exceed  $8.50.  If  we  add  to  this  for  overhead 
expenses,  such  as  fuel,  superintendence,  interest,  office  expense,  etc.,  $1  per  thousand, 
the  entire  cost  does  not  exceed  $9.50.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  General  Electric  Co. 
has  set  about  manufacturing  its  own  bulbs. 

In  additional  consideration,  it  is  well  known  that  the  Libbey  Co.  has  about  perfected 
an  automatic  bulb-blowing  machine.  This  will  probably  be  introduced  within  the 
next  year  or  so.  This  machine,  like  the  bottle-blowing  machine  owned  by  the  Libbey 
Co.,  will  largely  replace  hand  labor.  Then  the  tariff  can  not  protect  the  laborer  blowing 
bulbs  for  he  will  not  blow  any.  It  will,  if  left  undisturbed,  only  protect  a  monopoly 
built  up  by  unlawful  agreements  and  a  patented  machine  owned  by  the  combine. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

FRANK  Y.  GLADNEY, 
Counsel  to  the  United  States  Incandescent  Lamp  Co, 

JAN  LAKY  11,  1913. 


SCHEDULE   B.  765 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 
RETAIL  PRICE  OF  ELECTRIC-LIGHT  BULBS. 

SPOKANE,  WASH.,  January  11,  1913. 
The  CHAIRMAN  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D,  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  know  you  are  a  busy  man  and  I  do  not  wish  to  weary  you  with  trifles; 
yet  I  know,  too,  that,  even  though  your  path  is  not  a  rosy  one,  still  you  are  anxious  to 
do  that  which  you  as  a  citizen  and  as  a  Representative  of  the  country  leam  to  be  the 
best  thing  for  all  the  people.  I  appreciate  fully  the  difficulties  which  surround 
your  official  position. 

You  are  right  when  you  base  your  course,  not  upon  any  fears  of  the  future,  but 
upon  the  facts  of  the  day — the  things  that  are  now.  Proper  action  upon  them  secures 
the  future. 

Last  night  I  purchased  a  couple  of  electric-light  globes  from  a  local  dealer  and  he 
charged  me  40  cents  apiece  for  them.  I  regarded  the  price  exorbitant  and  made  a 
slight  remonstrance,  when  he  began  to  tell  me  all  about  them.  He  said  the  Consoli- 
dated charged  him  30  cents  each  for  them,  or  $3.60  per  dozen,  and  that  besides  he  had 
to  pay  $3.30  per  hundred  pound  freight  on  them  and  that  he  could  not  sell  them  any 
cheaper.  So  far  as  this  retail  merchant  may  be  concerned  this  may  be  true. 

I  used  to  live  in  the  glass-making  country,  and  I  know  that  25  cents  each  would  be 
a  good  price  for  the  consumer  to  pay  if  the  retailer  bought  them  at  a  reasonable  price. 

While  it  may  not  be  convenient  for  the  committee  to  procure  evidence  of  this  kind 
from  the  laymen  as  it  were — the  consumer — I  have  often  wished  that  some  arrange- 
ment for  its  admission  could  be  devised.  It  is  hardly,  however,  within  the  practical 
purview  of  a  committee  such  as  that  on  Ways  and  Means,  unless  it  had  some  subagency 
to  do  this  work  for  it — some  agency  similar  to  that  of  a  commissioner  in  chancery  of 
a  court  of  chancery — the  latter  being  the  fact  gatherer  for  the  court. 

The  globes  I  purchased  were  of  the  milkglass  kind  and  of  the  following  shape: 


I  am  not  making  any  complaint.     This  letter  is  not  written  in  that  sense  at  all,  for 
instances  like  this  come  up  often  in  my  daily  rounds;  but  I  felt  that  if  I  were  on  the 
committee  I  should  like  to  know  these  things  and  would  be  interested  in  them. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

W.  C.  MEYER. 

BRIEF  OF  IMPORTERS  OF  GLASSWARE  AT  THE  PORT  OF  NEW 

YORK. 

[Re  Glassware,  Schedule  B.] 

NEW  YORK,  January  7,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  House  oj  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We,  the  undersigned  importers  of  glassware  at  the  port  of  New  York, 
respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  the  inclosed  exhibits,  illustrating:  repre- 
sentative examples  of  articles  which  have  a  large  consumption  in  the  United  States 
and  the  importation  of  which  is  either  restricted  or  prohibited  under  Schedule  B 
of  the  act  of  Aueust,  1909. 

The  United  States  customs  tariff  now  in  force  on  these  necessities  of  life,  i.  e.,  60 
per  cent,  is  excessive — 

First.  Because  the  revenue  collected  on  all  the  glassware  imported  stands  in  no 
proportion  to  the  importance  of  the  industry  itself,  as  records  will  show  that  less  than 
2  per  cent  of  the  glassware  consumed  in  the  United  States  is  of  foreign  origin. 


766 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  97-^98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Secondly.  Because  it  raises  the  price  for  the  consumer  on  the  few  necessities  which 
are  still  imported  to  an  unnecessarily  high  figure.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  only  a  limited 
number  of  specialties  can  still  be  imported  at  the  high  rate  of  duty. 

The  present  duty  of  60  per  cent  is  taxed  not  only  on  the  value  of  the  goods,  but  also 
on  the  packing,  wrapping  charges,  and  cases  in  which  these  goods  are  shipped,  bringing 
up  the  percentage  of  duty  on  the  goods  proper  as  high  as  80  per  cent  and  more. 

In  adjusting  the  tariff  on  this  class  of  goods  attention  is  called  to  the  great  percentage 
of  additional  expenses  which  add  to  the  cost  of  these  goods  to  the  consumer.  The 
ocean  freight  alone,  which  has  been  advancing  every  year  for  a  number  of  years,  equals 
on  some  commodities  as  much  as  62  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  factory. 
In  addition  thereto  the  very  nature  of  the  business  makes  it  necessary  to  figure  with 
a  considerable  amount  of  breakage  with  which  the  importer  has  to  contend  and  for 
which  the  United  States  customs  tariff  offers  no  relief.  A  material  reduction  in  duties 
on  these  commodities  would  allow  these  goods  to  be  imported  more  freely  from  the 
principal  markets  of  the  world  and  enter  the  hands  of  the  consumer  at  a  more  reason- 
able price  and  would  increase  the  revenue  under  this  schedule  by  permitting  the 
importation  of  many  articles  which  the  present  tariff  has  excluded  from  these  shores. 
Inasmuch  as  imported  merchandise  must  be  ordered  from  six  to  eight  months  in 
advance,  and  can  only  be  imported  in  bulky  packages  unfit  to  enter  into  the  general 
trade  without  being  repacked,  while  American  manufacturers  are  in  a  position  to 
supply  the  trade  at  short  notice  in  any  desired  quantities,  and  also  inasmuch  as  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  are  in  a  position  to  export  their  goods  very  extensively,  and  enter 
in  foreign  markets  into  competition  with  foreign  goods,  we  respectfully  submit  that 
this  should  be  conclusive  evidence  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  high  rate  of  duty 
now  prevailing. 

We  offer  to  appear  before  your  committee,  either  collectively  or  individually,  and 
supply  you  with  such  further  information  and  evidence  as  you  may  desire. 
Very  respectfully, 

M.  Kirchberger  &  Co.,  374-380  Second  Avenue,  New  York;  H.  G.  McFad- 
din  &  Co.,  38  Warren  Street,  New  York  City;  Henry  Endemann, 
32  Park  Place;  Oscar  0.  Snedlently,  127  Duane  Street;  Fonderille  & 
Naw  Idustrie,  37  Warren  Street;  Fensterer  &  Reihl,  47  Murray 
Street;  B.  Gunthel,  49  Barclay  Street;  Franz  Enler  &  Co.,  1  Hudson 
Street. 

Ten-inch  ring  top  dome  shades,  opal. 

(A  reflector  used  on  most  cheap  metal  lamps,  the  principal  staple  in  this  line.    Are  imported  in  cases  of 

6  dozen  each.] 


Per  dozen. 

Marks. 
1.70 
.15 
.50 

Cents. 
40.80 
3.60 
12.00 

Packing  and  straw                            .            .       .          

Cases  and  partitions,  3  marks  per  case      

Freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg,  2  marks  per  100  kilos;  6  dozen  weigh  120  kilos... 
United  States  duty,  60  per  cent  on  56.40  cents  actually  corresponds  with  S3  per  cent 

2.35 
.40 

56.40 
9.60 

33.84 
22.00 

3.26 
4.00 

Ocean  freight: 
$1.75  per  cubic  meter'  1  case  equals  0.75  cubic  meter'  SI.  31  per  case  of  6  dozen.  .. 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  consular  certificates,  expenses  in  Hamburg,  8  per 
cent  of  40.8  cents    .                      ..                 

Cartage  

Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  Stat°s    

129.10 

RECAPITULATION. 


Cents. 

Per  cent. 

Cost  at  factory 

40  SO 

100 

Duty       

33.84 

83 

Ocean  freight                                                                                                               ...  . 

22.00 

55 

All  other  expenses     

32.46 

80 

129.10 

318 

SCHEDULE  B. 


767 


PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Ten-inch  Rochester  chimneys, 
[Cut  ends.   The  cheapest  chimney  used  on  lamps.    Are  imported  in  cases  of  24  dozen  each.] 


• 

Per  dozen. 

Marks. 

Cents. 

Price  at  the  factory  in  the  interior  of  Germany  

0.45 
.04 

.08 

10.80 
.96 
1.92 

Cases  (  1  92  marks  per  24  dozen)  

Freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg,  0.2  mark  per  100  kilos  (24  dozen  —  100  kilos).  . 

.57 
.OS 

13.68 
1.92 

8.21 
6.54 

.85 
1.00 

United  States  duty,  60  per  cent  on  13.68  cents  actually  corresponds  with  77  per  cent 
of  cost  of  goods  (10.80  cents)  

Ocean  freight:  $1.75  per  cubic  meter  (1  case  equals  0.90  cubic  meter,  1.57)  

Marine  insurance,  custom  entry,  consular  certificates,  expenses  in  Hamburg,  8  per 
cent  of  10.80    

Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  States  

32.20 

RECAPITULATION. 


Cents. 

Percent. 

Cost  at  factory  

10.80 

100 

Duty                                                     

8.21 

77 

Ocean  freight        

6.54 

62 

All  other  expenses  

6.65 

62 

32.20 

301 

Opal  globes  used  for  go*. 
[One  case  contains  16  dozen.] 


Marks. 

Cents. 

Price  at  the  factory  in  the  interior  of  Germany.  ........ 

2.38 
.19 
.16 

57.12 
5.00 
4.00 

Case  (3  marks  per"  16  dozen)  .".  

Packing  (2  ss  m^r^s  per  ifi  HO»WI)     ................... 

Freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg,  2  marks  per  100  kilos 
United  States  duty,  60  per  cent  on  66.12  cents,  actually  c< 
cost  of  goods 

,16  dozen—  100  kilos  

2.73 
.12 

66.12 
3.00 

39.67 
8.20 

4.57 
2.00 

>rresponds  with  70  per  cent  of 

Ocean  freight:  1.75  per  cubic  meter,  1  case=0.75  cubic  meter,  $1.31  per  case  of  16 
dozen....  --     

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  consular  certificates, 
cent  of  57.  12  cents  

expense  in  Hamburg,  8  per 

Cartage  

Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  States  

123.56 

Per  dozen. 


RECAPITULATION. 


Cents. 

Per  cent. 

Cost  at  factory  

57.12 

100 

Duty  

39  67 

70 

Ocean  freight  

8.20 

15 

Other  expenses  

18.57 

35 

123.56 

220 

768  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Fourtcen-inch  opal  dome  shades. 
[Used  for  parlor  or  dining-room  oil  lamps.    One  case  contains  4  dozen.1) 


Per  dozen. 


Marks.       Cents. 


Price  at  the  factory  in  the  interior  of  Germany. 
Packing  and  case 


3.85 
1.40 


Inland  freight .' 

United  States  duty,  60  per  cent  on  126.04  cents,  actually  corresponds  with  81  per  cent 

ofcost  of  goods  (92.44  cents) 

Ocean  freight 

Marine  insurance,  customs  entry,  consular  certificates,  expenses  in  Hamburg,  8  per 

cent  of  92. 44 

Cartage 


5.25 
.63 


Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  States. 


92.44 
33.60 


126.04 
15.00 


75.60 
44.00 


7.36 
6.00 


274.00 


RECAPITULATION. 


Cents. 


Per  cent. 


Cost  at  factory. . 

Duty 

Ocean  freight . . . 
Other  expenses. 


92.44 
75.60 
44.00 
61.96 


100 
81 

48 


274.00 


295 


Flint-glass  lantern  globe,  staple  article  with  large  consumption.     Can  not  be  im- 
ported under  present  tariff.     Packed  in  cases  of  12  dozen;  gross  weight,  100  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1 .  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 0. 48 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 10 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases 25 

4.  Total  dutiable  value 83 

5.  United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent .50 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg .17 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg .05 

8.  Ocean  freight .48 

9.  Cost  f .  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 2. 03 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory  as  above .48 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 1.  55 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer 320 

RECAPITULATION. 

Cents.      Per  cent. 

Cost  at  factory 0. 48  100 

Duty .50  104 

Ocean  freight .48  100 

Other  expenses .57  119 

2.03  423 


SCHEDULE  B.  769 

PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE. 

The  exhibits  of  clear  pressed-glass  globes  for  gas  and  electric  light  having  large  con- 
sumption in  United  States,  of  pressed-glass  candlesticks,  of  blown-glass  electric  globes, 
crystal,  frosted  inside,  and  of  pressed-glass  bpbeches,  can  not  be  imported  under  present 
tariff,  and  can  be  purchased  from  domestic  producers  at  prices  cheaper  than  those 
obtainable  in  foreign  markets,  irrespective  of  duty  and  other  expenses  attending 
importation  to  this  country. 

Duty  prohibitive. 

Exhibit  of  3£  by  6  crystal  ball  globe,  frosted  inside,  used  extensively  in  all  sizes  for 
electric  lighting. 

Can  not  be  imported  under  present  tariff.  Packed  in  cases  of  10  dozen,  gross  weight 
128  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1.  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing L  92 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 12 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases 30 

4.  Total  dutiable  value 2.  34 

5.  United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent 1. 40 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 26 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg 08 

8.  Ocean  freight 73 

9.  Cost  f.  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 4.  81 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory  as  above 1.  92 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 2.  89 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .        150 

RECAPITULATION. 


Marks.     Percent. 


Cost  at  factory . 
Duty 

Ocean  freight... 
Other  expenses . 


1.92 

1.40 

.73 

.76 


100 
73 
38 
39 


Cost  in  United  States. 


4.81 


250 


Duty  prohibitive. 

Exhibit  of  ruby.glass  lantern  globe  for  standard  tubular  hand  lantern. 

Staple  article,  with  large  consumption.     Importation  limited  under  present  tariff. 

Packed  in  cases  of  12  dozen;  gross  weight,  100  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1.  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 1.  96 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 12 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases .25 


4.  Total  dutiable  value 2.  33 

5.  United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent 1. 40 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 17 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg 05 

8.  Ocean  freight '. 48 

9.  Cost  f.  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 4. 43 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory,  as  above 1.  96 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 2.  47 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .       126 

78959°— VOL  1—13 49 


770 


TARIFF   HEAEINGS. 


PABAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWABE. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Marks.    Per  cent. 


Cost  at  factory. . 
Duty 

Ocean  freight... 
Other  expenses. 


1.96 
1.40 

.48 
.59 


100 
73 
25 
30 


4.43 


228 


Duty  unprohibitive. 

Exhibit  of  2^-inch  electric  globe,  blown  glass,  with  deep-etched  design. 
Staple  article  with  large  consumption.     Importation  limited  under  present  tariff. 
Packed  in  cases  of  10  dozen,  gross  weight  122  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1.  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 4.  94 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 12 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases 30 

4.  Total  dutiable  value 5.  36 

5.  United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent 3.  22 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 24 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg 08 

8.  Ocean  freight j     .70 

9.  Cost  f.  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 9.  60 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory  as  above 4.  94 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 4.  66 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .       94 

RECAPITULATION. 

Marks.      Per  cent. 

Cost  at  factory 4. 94  100 

Duty " 3. 22  65 

Ocean  freight .70  14 

Other  expenses .74  15 


9.60 


194 


Duty  unprohibitive. 

Exhibit  of  4-inch  pas  globe,  blown  glass,  with  light  etched  or  sand-blast  design. 
Staple  article  of  large  consumption.     Importation  limited  under  present  tariff. 

Packed  in  cases  of  10  dozen  each;  gross  weight,  110  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1 .  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 2.  61 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 12 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases.."  .30 


Total  dutiable  value 3.  03 

United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent 1.  82 

Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 22 

Expenses  at  Hamburg 07 

Ocean  freight.  .  .63 


11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 3.  16 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .       120 


SCHEDULE  B. 


771 


PARAGBAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Marks. 

Percent 

Cost  at  factory                              

2.61 

100 

Duty                        

1.82 

70 

.63 

24 

.71 

27 

5.77 

221 

Importation  limited. 

Exhibit  of  2J-inch  electric  globe,  blown  glass,  with  light  etched  or  sandblast  design. 
Staple  article,  consumed  in  large  quantities.     Importation  limited  under  present 

tariff.    Packed  in  cases  of  12  dozen  with  gross  weight  of  90  kilos. 

German  marks 
per  dozen. 

1.  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 2. 00 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 10 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases 25 

4.  Total  dutiable  value 2.35 

5.  United  States  duty,  at  60  per  cent 1. 41 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 15 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg 05 

8.  Ocean  freight .43 

9.  Costf.  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 4.39 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory  as  above 2. 00 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 2.  39 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .       120 


Importation  limited. 


RECAPITULATION. 


Marks. 

Percent. 

Cost  at  factory                ...                                     

2.00 

100 

Duty             

1.41 

71 

Ocean  freight  

.43 

22 

Other  expenses  

.55 

28 

4.39 

221 

Exhibit  of  blown  glass  globes  for  inverted  gas  burners,  upper  half  frosted. 
Staple  article  with  large  consumption.     Can  not  be  imported  under  present  tariff. 
Packed  in  cases  of  18  dozen;  gross  weight,  155  kilos.  German  marks 

per  dozen. 

1.  Foreign  cost  at  factory  without  packing 0.  88 

2.  Additional  charge  for  packing 10 

3.  Additional  charge  for  cases 16 

4.  Total  dutiable  value 1. 14 

5.  United  States  duty  at  60  per  cent 68 

6.  Inland  freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg 16 

7.  Expenses  at  Hamburg 05 

8 .  Ocean  freight 7 46 

9.  Cost  f.  o.  b.  port  of  New  York 2. 49 

10.  Less  cost  at  factory  as  above 88 

11.  Difference,  or  cost  of  transportation  and  duty 1.  61 

12.  This  difference  expressed  as  percentage  of  foreign  cost  at  factory,  showing 

actual  protection  afforded  domestic  producer per  cent. .     183 

Duty  prohibitive. 


772 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Marks. 

Per  cent. 

Cost  at  factory  .  

0.88 

100 

Duty  

.68 

77 

Ocean  freight  .     

.46 

52 

Other  expenses  

.47 

52 

2.49 

281 

Shipment  of  11  cases  of  glass  bowls. 


Value  in 
marks. 

Value  in 
dollars. 

396  pieces  at  1.25  marks  per  piece  

495 

88 

117.80 
20.95 
83.25 
15.47 
3.72 
33.80 
2.50 
3.30 

Cost  of  case  and  packing*.  .  .  T  

Duty  at  the  rate  of  60  per  cent  on  $138.75  

Freight  from  factory  to  Hamburg,  2,600  kilos  at  2.50  marks  per  100  kilos  

65 

Hamburg  forwarding  charges,  2,600  kilos  at  60  pfennig  *  

Ocean  freight,  13  cubic  meters  at  $2.60  per  cubic  meter  

Customs  entry  

Cartage,  11  cases  at  30  cents  

Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  States  

280.79 

RESUME. 


Amount. 

Per  cent. 

Value  of  goods  at  factory  

$117.80 

100 

Duty                            .          .       .          

83.25 

70 

Other  charges  

79.74 

67 

280.79 

237 

Duty  prohibitive. 


Shipment  of  S%  cases  of  glass  globes,  S  dozen  to  case. 


Value  in 
marks. 

Value  in 
dollars. 

281.28 

66.95 

Case  and  packing  32  cases,  at  5  marks  per  piece      .                       .... 

160.00 

38.08 

Dutv  on  $105.03,  at  60  per  cent  

63.01 

Freight  from  factorv  to  Hamburg,  3,250  kilos,  at  2  marks  per  100  kilos  

38.72 

9.20 

Hamburg  forwarding  charges,  3,250  kilos,  at  60  pfennig  per  100  kilos      .           

20.15 

4.80 

Ocean  freight,  33J  cubic  meters,  at  $2.60  per  cubic  meter  

87.10 

Customs  entry  

2.50 

9.60 

Total  cost  laid  down  in  United  States  

281.24 

RESUME. 


Amount. 

Per  cent. 

Value  of  goods  at  factory              

$66.  95 

100 

Duty  

63.01 

93J 

O  ther  charges               

151.28 

236 

281.24 

429J 

Duty  prohibitive. 


SCHEDULE  B.  773 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

One  case  common  ordinary  table  goblets. 

The  following  schedule  shows  the  factory  selling  price  to  the  importer  of  a  goblet 
and  the  percentage  of  duty  and  the  percentage  of  the  cost  to  land  at  seaport: 

Naked  goods,  Fc.  38.85 $7.  55 

Package,  Fc.  6.75 1.  30 

Freight  from  factory  to  seaport,  Fc.  3 60 

9.45 

Expenses  at  seaport  (about  5  per  cent) 47 

Ocean  freight 1.  25 

11.17 

Duty  on  goods $7.  55 

Duty  on  package 1.  30 

Additional  duty  to  make  market  value 3. 17 

12.02 
Less  inland  freight 60 

11.42 
At  60  per  cent 6.85 

Actual  cost  of  goods,  including  duty  and  freight 18.  02 

The  actual  duty  paid  on  naked  goods,  which  is  $7.55,  is  90  per  cent.  The  percentage 
of  expenses  on  the  actual  cost  of  naked  goods  to  land  in  America  is  140  per  cent  on 
the  cost  of  the  naked  article. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Amount. 


Per  cent. 


Cost  of  goods  at  factory. 

Duty 

Other  expenses 


$7.55 
6.85 
3.62 


100 
90 
50 


18.02 


240 


One  case  of  50  dozen  water  tumblers,  9-ounce,  melted  edge. 
Coat  price  at  the  factory  per  dozen  heller $0.  75 


Kronen 37.  50 

Case 6. 00 


Kronen...  .  43.50 


At  $20.3 8. 85 

60  per  cent  duty 5. 31 

Inland  freight 1.  30 

Ocean  freight 1.  50 

Insurance  and  entry  charges 30 

Dollars 17.26 

RECAPITULATION . 

Percentage  of  duty  on  actual  cost  of  goods  at  the  factory,  70  per  cent. 

Cost  price  per  dozen,  34£  cents. 

Market  price  to-day,  from  25  to  30  cents  per  dozen. 


774  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

One  case  of  100  dozen  S-ounce  cut  fluted  whisky  tumblers,  melted  edge. 
Cost  price  at  the  factory,  per  dozen heller. . 


Kronen 96. 00 

Case...  6.50 


Kronen..  .  102.50 


At  $20.30 20.  81 

60  per  cent  duty 12.  49 

Inland  freight 1.  75 

Ocean  freight 2.  25 

Insurance  and  entry  charges 50 

Dollars 37.  80 

RECAPITULATION. 

Percentage  of  duty  on  actual  cost  of  goods  at  the  factory,  64£  per  cent. 
Cost  price  per  dozen,  37.8  cents. 
Market  price  to-day,  36  cents  per  dozen. 

One  case  of  100  dozen  5-ounce  champagne  tumblers,  melted  edge. 
Cost  price  at  the  factory,  per  dozen heller. .        66 


Kronen 66.  00 

Case...  7.00 


Kronen..  .  73.00 


At  $20.30 14.  82 

60  per  cent  duty 8.  90 

Inland  freight 2.  25 

Ocean  freight 2.  75 

Insurance  and  entry  charges 40 

Dollars 29.12 

RECAPITULATION. 

Percentage  of  duty  on  actual  cost  of  goods  at  the  factory,  66J  per  cent. 

Cost  price  per  dozen,  29  cents. 

Market  price  to-day,  from  22  to  25  cents  per  dozen. 

Common  water  bottle  with  plain  cut  fluted  neck. 

Per  cent. 

Duty 60 

Duty  on  case  and  packing 6.  25 

Cost  of  case  and  packing 10.  50 

Ocean  freight 12 

Consular  fee,  customhouse  entry,  cartage,  inland  freight  to  Antwerp,  and  in- 

eurance...  5 


Charges  above  naked  foreign  coat 93.  75 


Foreign  cost  per  dozen $1.  958 

Expense  to  import,  93.75  per  cent 1.  835 

Cost  per  dozen  landed  in  United  States 3.  793 


SCHEDULE  B.  775 

PARAGRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Glass  jug  (used  by  cutters  in  the  United  States  for  manufacture  of  rich  cut  glass). 

Per  cent. 

Duty 60 

Duty  on  cask  and  packing 3. 10 

Cost  of  cask  and  packing 5.  30 

Ocean  freight 10 

Consular  fee,  customhouse  entry,  cartage,  inland  freight,  and  insurance •.      5 

Charges  above  naked  foreign  cost 83.  40 


Foreign  cost  of  goods  per  dozen $7. 197 

Expense  to  import,  83.40  per  cent 6.  004 

Cost  per  dozen  landed  in  United  States 13.  201 

LAMP  SHADES  AND  CHIMNEYS. 

NEW  YORK,  January  S.  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  following  matter,  while  directly  germane  to  the  glass  lamp  shades 
and  chimney  schedules,  affects  practically  every  other  schedule. 

The  freight  rates  from  European  ports  are  controlled  and  arbitrarily  fixed  by  a 
combination  and  pooling  agreement  between  the  trans-Atlantic  steamship  lines,  of 
which  pool  the  Hamburg  American  Line  is  the  dominating  factor.  Meetings  of  the 

¥ool  members  and  their  decisions  fixing  rates  are  freely  published  in  the  foreign  press, 
he  existence  of  the  pool  is  not  only  a  matter  of  common  notoriety,  but  is  the  basis 
of  suits  now  being  prosecuted  by  the  Government,  after  due  investigation,  seeking  a 
dissolution  of  the  pool  and  an  injunction  against  its  oppressive  practices. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  members  of  this  combination  affect- 
ing American  merchants,  I  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  your  committee  the  treat- 
ment just  meted  out  to  my  clients,  M.  Kirchberger  &  Co.,  for  22  years  one  of  the 
largest  importers  of  lamp  shades  and  chimneys,  at  whose  instance  I  am  communicat- 
ing with  you. 

Every  such  importer  secures  what  are  called  special  rates,  very  much  lower  than 
the  so-called  regular  freight  tariff,  by  entering  into  a  yearly  contract  to  ship  all  his 
freight  by  one  line,  or  by  such  substituted  lines  as  the  carrier  shall  designate.  The 
1912  contracts  expired  with  the  end  of  the  year.  M.  Kirchberger  &  Co.'s  contract 
was  with  the  Hamburg  American  Line,  which  controls  all  shipments  out  of  Hamburg, 
the  only  port  available  to  the  shippers  of  these  goods. 

On  October  11,  1912,  this  firm  was  notified  by  cable  that  "Pool  rates  next  year  25 
cents  cubic  meter  higher."  Mr.  Kirchberger,  exasperated  by  this  last  of  a  series  of 
advances  since  the  formation  of  the  pool,  and  realizing  the  helplessness  of  American 
merchants,  ventured  to  write  to  the  press  a  protest  at  this  increase  of  16f  per  cent 
over  existing  rates  on  a  commodity  which  enters  the  poorest  household,  the  advance 
representing  from  25  to  30  per  cent  of  the  foreign  value  of  the  commodity  and  neces- 
sarily increasing  the  price  to  the  consumer,  as  in  the  case  of  duties.  The  point  of  Mr. 
Kirchberger' s  letter  was,  as  stated  by  him,  that:  "They  (the  steamship  lines)  are  not 
subjected  to  any  control  like  our  railroads,  and  can  dictate  simply  the  amount  of  trib- 
ute that  the  consumer  should  pay  them.  Care  must  therefore  be  taken  that  the 
reduction  of  the  tariff,  which  we  apparently  are  going  to  get  at  last,  does  not  widen 
this  limit,  and  that  simultaneously  with  a  reduction  of  duties,  this  octopus  be  dealt 
with  in  a  manner  that  will  prevent  it  from  cheating  the  public  by  absorbing  the  bene- 
fit of  a  reduction  in  duties  for  its  own  gain . ' '  For  his  temerity  in  exercising  the  Amer- 
ican right  of  free  speech  and  calling  public  attention  to  an  evil,  Mr.  Kirchberger  was 
promptly  notified  by  cable  that  unless  he  retracted  and  expressed  his  regret  for  hia 
criticism  the  Hamburg- American  line  would  make  no  contract  whatever  with  him, 
even  at  the  advanced  rate  for  the  ensuing  year,  but  that  he  would  be  compelled  to 
pay  $1  a  cubic  meter  more  than  his  competitors  for  future  shipments.  Such  a 
discrimination  is,  of  course,  sufficient  to  put  any  firm  out  of  business. 

Guided  by  this  experience,  which  is  fairly  typical  of  conditions  now  obtaining  in 
our  foreign  trade,  it  is  earnestly  urged  that  in  making  tariff  reductions  your  com- 
mittee couple  the  reductions  with  some  effective  regulation,  calculated  to  give  the 


776  TABIFP  HEABINGS. 

PAR  A  GRAPHS  97-98— GLASS  AND  GLASSWARE. 

consumer  the  benefit  of  the  reductions  instead  of  giving  the  benefit  to  the  foreign 
steamship  pool. 

Such  a  regulation  might  be  one  providing  that  the  reductions  should  not  affect 
importations  from  any  country,  freight  rates  from  the  ports  of  which  are  controlled 
and  fixed  by  agreement  between  steamship  companies  engaged  in  transportation 
between  the  ports  of  such  country  and  ports  in  the  United  States. 

If  possible,  I  should  like  to  be  heard  briefly  on  this  subject  before  your  committee 
on  January  6,  when  the  hearing  on  this  schedule  comes  up,  or  at  such  other  time  as 
may  be  fixed.  With  great  respect,  I  am, 

Yours,  very  truly,  CLARENCE  J.  SHEARN. 

STATEMENT  REGARDING  HOLLOW  GLASSWARE. 

NEW  YORK,  December  24,  1912. 
Hon.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  hollow  glassware,  such  as  shades  and 
chimneys,  which  were  dutiable  under  the  McKinley  bill  at  45  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
cases  and  packing  free.  Since  then  a  powerful  syndicate  of  high  protectionists  caused 
the  passage  of  a  bill,  advancing  the  duty  to  60  per  cent  ad  valorem,  including  the  cost 
of  cases  and  packing,  so  that  we  pay  75  to  80  per  cent  duty  on  the  glass,  as  the  cases 
and  packing  are  worthless  after  unpacking. 

We  are  even  forced  to  pay  full  duty  on  breakage,  so  that  a  case  with  50  per  cent 
breakage,  such  as  occurs  not  infrequently,  cost  us  125  per  cent  duty. 

On  many  articles  which  I  import  I  have  to  raise  my  invoice  2  J  to  5  per  cent,  because 
the  examiner  and  the  appraisers  claim  that  other  importers  of  smaller  quantities 
have  paid  more  for  the  same  article,  and  make  no  allowance  for  quantities  or  better 
buying  ability. 

You  and  your  colleagues  will  readily  see  that  a  revision  of  the  tariff  on  shades  and 
chimneys  and  other  glassware  is  warranted  and  equitable.  Forty-five  per  cent  duty 
on  the  naked  glassware  is  surely  an  adequate  protection  for  this  industry. 

On  the  1st  of  January,  1912,  ocean  freight  rates  are  being  advanced  20  per  cent,  thus 
giving  the  American  manufacturers  still  further  protection. 

Sincerely  hoping  that  you  will  give  this  matter  your  consideration,  I  remain, 
Respectfully,  yours, 

OSCAR  O.  FRIEDLAENDER, 

MEMORIAL    FROM    GLASSWORKERS'    UNION,    PHILADELPHIA, 

PA. 

HEADQUARTERS  LOCAL  UNION  No.  99,  A.  F.  G.  W.  U., 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  January  27,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORABLE  SIR:  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  is  now  considering  a  revision  of  the  tariff  laws  on  imported  glasswares,  and 
has  the  subject  under  consideration  known  as  paragraph  B,  schedule  98.  We  most 
respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  reduced  tariff  means  reduced  wages 
to  our  members  and  other  sacrifices  such  as  were  experienced  under  the  Wilson 
tariff  law. 

We  therefore  beseech  you  and  your  committee  to  not  make  any  reduction  on  the 
present  tariff  rates  on  imported  glasswares,  as  the  present  tariff  rates  do  not  afford 
sufficient  protection  to  the  American  workman,  as  considerable  glassware  is  now  being 
imported  notwithstanding  the  extraordinary  keen  competition  prevailing  in  the  glass 
markets  of  our  country. 

There  is  no  monopoly  on  glasswares  in  the  American  trade,  and  no  organization 
among  the  flint-glass  manufacturers.  All  are  free  to  sell  as  they  please  and  prices 
are  very  low. 

There  will  be  no  relief  afforded  to  the  citizens  of  our  country  if  the  tariff  rates  are 
reduced,  as  it  will  only  intensify  the  present  deplorable  state  of  affairs. 

Therefore  we  most  respectfully  protest  against  any  reduction  in  the  tariff  rates, 
and  we  trust  you  will  art  favorably  on  our  appeal. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

JAMES  P.  McExTEE,  Secretary. 


SCHEDULE   B.  777 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

PARAGRAPH  99. 

Unpolished,  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  and  fifty  square  inches,  valued  at  not  more  than  one  and  one- 
half  cents  per  pound,  one  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  more 
than  one  and  one-half  cents  per  ppund,  one  and  three-eighths  cents  per  pound; 
above  that,  and  not  exceeding  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  square  inches, 
valued  at  not  more  than  one  and  three-fourths  cents  per  pound,  one  and  three- 
fourths  cents  per  pound;  valued  at  more  than  one  and  three-fourths  cents  per 
pound,  one  and  seven-eighths  cents  per  pound;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding 
seven  hundred  and  twenty  square  inches,  valued  at  not  more  than  two  and 
one-eighth  cents  per  pound,  two  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound;  valued 
at  more  than  two  and  one-eighth  cents  per  pound,  two  and  three-eighths 
cents  per  pound;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  eight  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  square  inches,  two  and  three-fourths  cents  per  pound;  above  that, 
and  not  exceeding  one  thousand  two  hundred  square  inches,  three  and  one- 
fourth  cents  per  pound;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  two  thousand  four 
hundred  square  inches,  three  and  three-fourths  cents  per  pound;  above 
that,  four  and  one-fourth  cents  per  pound:  Provided,  That  unpolished  cylin- 
der, crown,  and  common  window  glass,  imported  in  boxes,  shall  contain 
fifty  square  feet,  as  nearly  as  sizes  will  permit,  and  the  duty  shall  be  com- 
puted thereon  according  to  the  actual  weight  of  glass. 

WINDOW  GLASS. 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  R.  JOHNSTON,  PEESIDENT  OF  THE  JOHNSTON 
GLASS  CO.,  HARTFORD  CITY,  IND. 

Mr.  JOHNSTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
since  coming  here  I  find  there  are  three  representatives  of  the  window- 
glass  industry,  who  have  prepared  arguments  that  contain  very  much 
that  I  contemplated  saying.  Therefore  I  am  going  to  surrender  my 
•  time  and  submit  a  brief  in  behalf  of  my  company.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested by  these  three  gentlemen,  Messrs.  Hilton,  Neenan,  and  Stone, 
that  if  15  minutes  were  added  to  my  allotted  time,  the  window-glass 
industry  could  be  disposed  of  to-day. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  to  get  through  with  the  witnesses 
that  are  here,  but  if  we  can  get  through  with  them  to-day  we  will  try 
to  accommodate  them.  Your  brief  will  be  inserted  at  this  point. 

BRIEF  or  J.  R.  JOHNSTON,  PRESIDENT  JOHNSTON  GLASS  Co. 

JANUARY  8,  1913. 

To  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN:  The  continuance  of  manufacturing  window  glass 
in  the  United  States  by  hand  methods  depends  upon  the  retention  of  sufficient  tariff 
to  keep  foreign  glass  out  of  our  market. 

The  removal  or  any  large  reduction  in  the  tariff  would  admit  Belgian  glass  in  such 
quantities  that  it  would  force  the  closing  of  our  plants  in  a  very  short  time. 

I  have  been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  window  glass  since  1890  and  have  found 
the  business  exceedingly  erratic,  caused  by  various  changes  in  methods,  ruinous 
competition  at  times  bet.veen  manufacturers,  labor  troubles,  and  overproduction. 
Some  of  the  opponents  of  a  protective  tariff  have  stated  that  the  business  has  not 
prospered,  even  though  protected;  and  while  this  to  a  certain  extent  is  true,  the  manu- 
facturing of  window  glass  would  have  ceased  long  ago  in  the  United  States  had  this 
protection  been  removed. 

It  has  been  the  history  of  the  business  that  years  showing  losses  have  been  freely 
intermingled  with  those  showing  profits,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  not  a  single  rich  man  can 
be  named  in  the  window-glass  business  who  accumulated  his  means  through  the  manu« 
facture  of  glass. 

75262°— B— 13 21 


778  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

In  the  earlier  days  10  months  was  considered  the  operating  period,  and  for  several 
years  factories  operated  for  that  length  of  time;  but  the  production  grew  so  rapidly 
that  when  the  output  was  at  its  height  there  was  a  total  of  4,000  pots  in  the  country 
that  could  manufacture  window  glass,  and  with  this  increased  output  the  period  for 
operating  the  factories  gradually  worked  into  fewer  months,  until  now  eight  months  is 
considered  a  long  period  of  operation,  and  more  frequently  our  plants  operate  seven 
months.  To-day  less  than  1,400  hand-operated  pots  are  in  blast,  and  20  modern  plants 
are  idle  and  20  other  factories  of  more  or  less  modern  construction  are  not  operating. 

Natural  gas  has  played  a  very  important  part  in  building  up  the  industry.  It  is 
an  ideal  fuel  for  making  window  glass,  but  it  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  been  of  very 
much  financial  gain  to  those  who  have  invested  their  money  in  the  business.  When 
a  gas  field  has  been  discovered  promoters,  land  companies,  and  commercial  clubs 
have  offered  extraordinary  inducements  to  establish  window-glass  factories  because 
of  the  attractive  pay  roll, and  in  many  cases  gas  was  furnished  free  of  charge  or  else 
at  an  exceedingly  low  rate,  which  price  was  many  times  below  the  cost  of  artificial 
fuel.  When  the  gas  in  any  certain  field  would  fail,  the  factories  were  either  aban- 
doned or  moved  to  some  newly-discovered  field.  This  can  be  shown  by  the  list  of 
factories  attached,  which  is  made  from  a  directory  of  1898.  There  isn't  a  single  factory 
in  this  list,  that  is  operated  by  hand,  in  the  location  named  at  that  time,  and  about  90 
per  cent  of  them  have  been  dismantled  and  gone  out  of  business. 

The  principal  cost  in  making  window  glass  is  in  labor,  about  60  per  cent,  and  any 
further  reductions  in  American  costs  would  have  to  come  from  that  source;  and  with 
glassworkers  employed  on  an  average  of  seven  months  a  year,  there  is  no  room  for 
economy  in  that  direction.  The  other  important  costs  are  fuel  and  lumber,  both  of 
which  are  continually  advancing  and  are  likely  to  show  further  increases  from  year  to 
year.  In  this  country  about  two-thirds  of  the  glass  used  is  in  single  strength,  and 
from  50  to  60  per  cent  of  this  single  strength  is  in  the  first  three  brackets,  which  means 
sizes  16  by  24  and  smaller.  These  sizes  especially  need  an  increased  tariff,  for  the 
reason  that  in  Belgium  the  percentage  of  first  three  bracket  sizes  consumed  is  only  about 
20  per  cent,  which  leaves  that  country  with  a  surplus  of  small  glass  that  they  are  only 
too  anxious  to  distribute  in  the  United  States  and  other  world's  markets. 

Under  the  present  tariff  schedule  the  margin  of  profit  on  first  two  bracket  sizes  in 
single  strength  is  practically  nothing,  and  American  manufacturers  make  and  sell 
at  least  1,000,000  boxes  of  small  glass  at  an  actual  loss.  On  this  small  glass  we  should 
have  increased  protection.  The  amount  of  tariff  on  these  sizes  should  not  be  less  than 
2  cents  per  pound. 

Personally  I  would  be  willing  to  leave  the  arrangement  of  the  tariff  schedule  to  any 
fair-minded  committee  that  would  investigate  foreign  costs  and  base  the  protection  on 
the  difference  between  labor  in  Belgium,  skilled  and  unskilled,  as  compared  with 
wages  for  similar  workmen  in  the  United  States,  adding  what  any  business  man  would 
consider  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  investment. 

The  differences  in  wages  in  Belgium  as  compared  with  wages  paid  in  the  United 
States  is  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  why  no  lowering  of  the  tariff  should  be  consid- 
ered. Common  labor  in  Belgian  window-glass  factories  receives  60  cents  per  day  as 
against  our  men  at  $2  per  day. 

In  the  skilled  trades  the  same  relative  difference  applies. 

In  the  Belgian  factories  are  employed  many  women,  and  girls  are  employed  at  wages 
much  lower  than  are  paid  their  own  men.  These  Belgian  factories  operate  continu- 
ously, viz,  24  hours  daily  and  7  days  in  the  week. 

Comparative  figures  show  that  for  every  $35  paid  by  foreign  manufacturers  as  win- 
dow-glass labor,  we  manufacturers  in  this  country  pay  $100  for  the  same  service. 

The  estimated  consumption  of  window  glass  in  this  country  is  between  seven  and 
seven  and  one-half  million  boxes.  The  returns  for  all  of  the  glass  manufactured  in 
the  United  States  to  the  manufacturers  does  not  exceed  $15,000,000.  Therefore,  as 
compared  with  the  great  industrial  world,  it  is  insignificant,  as  innumerable  busi- 
ness houses  conducting  small  establishments  do  this  much  business  annually. 

Attached  is  statement  showing  the  annual  imports  for  the  last  25  years. 

We  have  never  been  able  to  dispose  of  any  of  our  goods  outside  of  our  own  country, 
as  we  are  met  with  Belgian  competition  in  Canada,  Central  America,  South  America, 
and  Mexico,  which  would  mean  a  serious  loss  to  us  if  we  met  the  selling  price  of  our 
competitors  in  these  countries.  Therefore,  our  sales  are  confined  to  our  own  terri- 
tory and  we  hope  that  we  will  not  be  disturbed  in  marketing  our  goods  at  home.  The 
price  of  glass  is  not  high,  and  the  percentage  of  cost  in  construction  is  trifling. 

Belgian  manufacturers  handle  their  business  through  syndicates  which  are  en- 
couraged and  supported  by  their  Government.  Therefore,  if  we  remove  the  tariff  on 


SCHEDULE   B. 


779 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

window  glass  we  will  not  only  abandon  glass  making  to  the  foreign  laborer  and  manu- 
facturer but  we  will  be  buying  our  glass  from  one  of  these  trusts  which  are  so  strongly 
condemned  at  home. 

I  attach  two  estimates  herewith  showing  the  cost  of  glass  in  two  dwelling  houses, 
which,  at  the  price  the  retailer  obtains  for  this  glass,  is  only  1  per  cent  of  the  total  cost 
of  the  buildings.  Window  glass  is  the  cheapest  form  of  construction  and  can  not  be 
duplicated  in  cost  by  using  any  other  material.  It  is  far  cheaper  than  wood,  stone, 
brick,  steel,  etc.,  per  square  foot. 

When  noting  the  amount  of  window  glass  being  used  it  can  not  be  said  that  prices 
are  high  and  that  the  consumer  is  paying  more  than  a  normal  price  for  our  product. 
We  hear  of  no  complaints  on  prices,  or  tariff,  excepting  from  a  few  importers  whose 
selfish  commercial  interests  cause  them  to  lose  sight  of  American  laborers  and  the 
owners  of  plants  who  contribute  no  small  part  to  the  building  up  and  support  of  our 
country. 

Not  only  does  foreign  labor  make  the  retention  of  present  tariff  imperative,  but  the 
low  ocean  transportation  charges  work  to  our  tremendous  disadvantage.  The  rates 
from  Belgium  to  Pacific  coast  points  are  about  one-third  of  our  freight  charges  on  rail 
shipments  from  pur  factories  to  the  Pacific  coast.  About  one-tenth  of  our  product  is 
used  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

In  conclusion,  will  say  that  I  firmly  believe  that  if  the  tariff  on  window  glass  is 
removed  or  lowered  the  industry  will  be  destroyed.  The  glass  workers  will  be  com- 
pelled to  work  for  impossible  wages  until  such  time  as  they  finally  abandon  their 
trades,  and  the  factories  we  own  will  drift  into  the  junk  heap. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  R.  JOHNSTON, 
President  Johnston  Glass  Co.,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 

GLASS  IMPORTS  AND   EXPORTS. 

The  following  tables  are  interesting  as  showing  the  amount  of  American  money 
which  has  gone  to  foreign  countries  during  the  past  25  years  in  exchange  for  glass 
and  glassware  and  the  amount  of  foreign  money  which  has  been  expended  for  our 
products  during  a  corresponding  period.  The  tables  presented  do  not  include  all  of 
the  foreign  glass  which  reaches  our  shores,  plates  or  disks,  rough  cut  or  unwrought, 
for  optical  instruments,  which  come  in  free  of  duty,  being  an  exception,  and  for  this 
class  of  goods  alone  there  was  imported  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  with  June  30, 
1912,  $383,234  worth,  our  total  expenditure  for  foreign  glass  during  the  12  months 
ending  with  June  30  of  this  year  having  been  $6,210,625,  while  the  value  of  our  expor- 
tations  during  a  corresponding  period  was  $3,494,153.  The  record  of  window-glass 
importations  for  25  years  is  as  follows: 


Year. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Year. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

1888... 

1,184,219 

$1,  389,  928 

1901 

470,  610 

$922,  690 

1889. 

1  249,576 

1,425,515 

1902 

950  196 

1  797,681 

1890.  .  . 

1,193,954 

1,430,777 

1903 

1  059,790 

1,  762,  767 

1891.  .   .  . 

982,  212 

1,475  338 

1904 

855  682 

1  381,104 

1892  

1,112,000 

1,549,707 

1905 

297,  662 

627,  618 

1893  . 

1  045  961 

1  425  551 

1906 

570  833 

1  306  723 

1894  

888,  332 

1,  067,  787 

1907 

530  166 

1,037,770 

1895  

663,081 

835,  730 

1903 

424,239 

824,  616 

1896  

886,  372 

1,067,990 

1909 

389,  493 

760,164 

1897  

932,  697 

1,  181,  696 

1910 

450,  078 

810,  915 

1898  

648,  483 

953,  116 

1911 

520,832 

948,  959 

1899  

786,  494 

1,275,185 

1912 

413,  478 

950,  123 

1900  

855.723 

1,655,926 

780 


TAKIPF   HEAEINGS. 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  in  boxes  and  pounds,  and  the  value  of 
cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  unpolished,  imported  during  July,  1912, 
at  the  ports  of  entry  designated: 


District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes.        Value. 

District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Baltimore 

13,000 

217             $394 

Cuyahoga 

30  992 

517 

$961 

Boston  

100,  312 

1,  672            3,  627 

Genesce  .      ... 

820,  352 

13  673 

34  114 

New  York 

469,  589 

7,  826           19,  666 

fHnninnftti 

1  897 

31 

41 

Philadelphia  

156,923 

2,615             5,271 

Denver  

205 

3 

82 

Porto  Rico 

722 

2                  21 

Tnriiftnupolis 

28  184 

470 

812 

Galveston  

23,307 

388                692 

Lincoln     .  . 

2,080 

35 

89 

Portland 

9,464 

158                286 

St.  Louis 

340  342 

5  672 

14  249 

Buffalo 

31  799 

530            1  824 

Chicago  

157^247 

2,621  ;          5,489 

Total  

2,  186,  415 

36,440 

87,  618 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  in  boxes  and  pounds  and  the  value  of 
cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  unpolished,  imported  during  August, 
1912,  at  the  ports  of  entry  designated: 


District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Baltimore  

24,  216 

403 

$901 

Genesee  

364,  311 

6,071 

$14,  937 

Boston  

75,034 

1,250 

1,697 

Columbus 

11 

6 

New  York  

705,  683 

11,761 

29,839 

Denver  

57 

231 

Philadelphia. 

37,966 

632 

2,189 

Lincoln....  

27,040 

450 

1,082 

New  Orleans. 

16,800 

280 

179 

Omaha    .  ... 

35,204 

586 

1,414 

Los  Angeles  .  . 

41,872 

698 

1,186 

St.  Louis  

253,805 

4,230 

10,583 

32  656 

544 

944 

San  Francisco 

72,  384 

1,206 

2,222 

Total  

1,  762,  055 

29,361 

72,  698 

Chicago  

75,016 

1,250 

5,288 

In  the  above  table  it  will  be  observed  that  Columbus  is  credited  with  taking  11 
pounds,  the  value  being  $6,  while  Denver  imported  57  pounds,  at  a  reported  cost  of 
$231.  That  strikes  us  as  being  sort  of  funny,  but  it  is  the  showing  made  in  the  Govern- 
ment's official  record. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  of  boxes  and  pounds  and  the  value  of 
cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  unpolished,  imported  during  September, 
1912,  at  the  ports  of  entry  designated: 


District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

District. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Baltimore  

12,914 

215 

$396 

708  695 

11  812 

$30  579 

Boston  

104.025 

1,734 

3,078 

Milwaukee 

57,200 

953 

1  894 

New  York  

352,  &3S 

5.877 

16,  744 

Minnesota  

27,  328 

455 

1,241 

Philadelphia  . 

99,  183 

1,653 

3,788 

Columbus  

279 

5 

87 

New  Orleans. 

80,800 

1,347 

2,919 

Denver  

29,955 

495 

1,237 

Los  Angeles.  . 
Puget  Sound. 

14,  868 
11,624 

248 
194 

523 

346 

Kansas  City  
Memphis  

30,415 
694 

507 
12 

1,229 
63 

San  Francisco 

20,608 

343 

1,131 

St.  Louis  

147,  764 

2,463 

5,958 

Buffalo 

2  003 

33 

481 

Chicago  

IS"!  078 

3,118 

6,108 

Total  

1,  917,  555 

31,  959 

78,  717 

Cuyahoga  

29,484 

491 

915 

SCHEDULE   B. 


781 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

t 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  of  boxes  and  pounds  and  the  value  of 
cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  unpolished,  imported  during  October, 
1912,  at  the  ports  of  entry  designated: 


Districts. 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Districts.  l 

Pounds. 

Boxes. 

Value. 

Baltimore      

10,046 

167 

9236 

Chicago    

81,253 

1,354 

$3,351 

Boston      and 

Cuyahoga.  ....... 

75 

2 

74 

Charleston.  ..... 

112,308 

1,871 

5,112 

Genesee  

721,499 

12.024 

28,722 

New  York  

900,682 

15,012 

30,484 

Miami  

33,532 

558 

1.219 

Philadelphia  .  . 

145,970 

2,432 

6,571 

Superior..  ....... 

140 

3 

21 

New  Orleans.. 

13,887 

231 

424 

Cincinnati.  ....... 

72,930 

1,215 

1,896 

Alaska  

25 

1 

7 

Pittsburgh     .  . 

2,058 

33 

356 

Los  Angeles  

62,000 

1,033 

1,932 

St.  Louis  

590,823 

9,847 

23,397 

9  800 

163 

295 

Buffalo  Creek.. 

29^325 

485 

957 

Total  

2,786,353 

46,431 

105,054 

Glass  in  house  of  No.  2  Johnston' s  first  addition. 


B  single. 

A  double. 

10  lights,  24  by  28... 

27.27 

46.14 

18  lights,  24  by  26  

69.75 

117.00 

2  lights,  22  by  40  

8.44 

14.00 

1  light,  23  by  40  

4.22 

7.00 

2  lights,  8  by  28  

1.75 

2.85 

111.43 

186.99 

Jobbers'  list:  B  single,  at  90-20-8. 91-.011  of  cost  of  house,  $800;  A  double,  at 
90-25-14. 02-.0165  of  cost  of  house,  $800. 

Above  glass  figured  from  manufacturers'  list:  B  single,  at  90-17^-6. 89-.0086  of  coat 
of  house,  $800;  A  double,  at  90-22J-10.86-.0125  of  cost  of  house,  $800. 

Glass  in  residence  of  J.  R.  Johnston. 


16  lights,  14  by  22  A.  D.  S $25.  54 

2  lights,  14  by  22 3.  96 

1  light,  14  by  26 2.  28 

4  lights,  14  by  30 11.  65 

6  lights,  16  by  26 17.  47 

2  lights,  20  by  20 5.  50 

4  lights,  20  by  27 15.  23 

2  lights,  20  by  41 12.  44 

2  lights,  21  by  22 6.  60 

2  lights,  22  by  22 6.  60 

2  lights,  22  by  24 7.  08 

2  lights,  22  by  26 7.  61 

2  lights,  22  by  28 8.  25 

6  lights,  22  by  32 30.  46 

2  lights,  22  by  41 14.  00 

6  lights,  24  by  30 30.  46 

Jobbers'  list,  at  90-25-46. 73-.0058  of  cost  of  house,  $8.000. 


8  lights,  24  by  32 $46.  22 

2  lights,  25  by  41 16.  00 

2  lights,  26  by  28 10.  40 

8  lights,  26  by  32 46.  22 

4  lights,  26  by  30 23.11 

1  light,  26  by  41 8.00 

2  lights,  30  by  36 16.00 

4  lights,  30  by  41 41.  00 

6  lights,  30  by  32 42.  00 

1  light,  31  by  61 17.  00 

1  light,  32  by  32 32.00 

1  light,  44  by  66 42.  90 

1  light,  56  by  66 77.14 

Total..                                   .  623.12 


782 


TABLFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Window-glas*  factories  in  operation  in  1898. 

WESTERN  DISTRICT. 


Firm  name. 

Furnaces  or 
tanks. 

Pots  or 
blowers. 

Location. 

Remarks. 

Alexandria  Window  Glass 

1  furnace.... 

10  pots  

Aifi^andrift,  Tnd.  .  ,  , 

Dismantled. 

Co. 
American   Window    Glass 

1  taut.    .. 

54  blowers  . 

Gas  City  Ind  

Do. 

Co. 
Anderson  Glass  Co  

4  furnaces... 

40  pots  

Anderson,  Ind...  

Do. 

Bellefonte  Glass  Co.  . 

1  furnace... 

Spots  

Bellefonte,  Pa  

Do. 

Brickner  Window  Glass  Co. 

2  furnaces  

12  pots  

Sweetser,  Ind    ,      

Do. 

Barnesville  Glass  Co 

do... 

18  pots.  . 

Barnesville,  Ohio.. 

Do. 

Bates  Window  Glass  Co 

.  .do  

12  pots  

Dunkirk,  Ind  

Do. 

Baur  Window  Glass  Co  

1  tank  

24  blowers.. 

Eaton,  Ind  

Idle. 

Bradford  Glass  Co  

do  

do  

Bradford,  Pa  

Removed    to    Clarks- 

B. N.  McCoy  Glass  Co  

2  tanks.  ... 

60  blowers... 

Kane,  Pa  

burg. 
American       Window 

Big  Four  Window  Glass  Co 

2  furnaces  .  . 

12pots...  . 

Fairmont,  W.  Va..  . 

Glass  Co.  machine. 
Dismantled 

Buckeye  Window  Glass  Co 

.    do  

...  .do  

Albany,  Tnd  .  , 

Do. 

Chambers  Glass  Co  

3  tanks  

162  blowers.  . 

Arnold,  Pa  

American      Window 

Chambers  &  McKee  Glass 

...do  

168  blowers.  . 

Jeannette,  Pa  

Glass  Co.  machine. 
Do. 

Co. 
Columbus  Plate  &  Window 

1  furnace... 

10  pots  

Lancaster.  Ohio  

Machines. 

Glass  Co. 
Crystal  Window  Glass  Co.  . 

do  

do  

Summitville,  Ind  

Dismantled. 

Clyde  Window  Glass  Co 

2  furnaces 

18  pots  

Frankton,  Ind  ....... 

Do. 

Columbia    Window    Glass 

1  fnrnfWfi 

10  pots  

Greenfield,  Ind  

Do. 

Co. 
Cunningham     Glass     Co., 

(2  furnaces  .  . 

20  pots  

Pittsburgh,  Pa  

Idle  for  several  years. 

D.  O. 

\1  tank  

30  blowers... 

do  

Do. 

Cunningham  &  Co.  (Ltd.)  . 

1  furnace    .. 

12  pots  

do  

Dismantled. 

Dunkirk  Window  Glass  Co. 

4  furnaces  

24  pots  

Dunkirk,  Ind  

Moved  to  Charleston, 

Ely  Window  Glass  Co  

1  furnace  .  

10  pots  

Oilman,  Ind  

W.  Va. 

Dismantled. 

Enterprise  Window  Glass 

4  furnaces 

36  pots 

Dunkirk,  Ind...  

Do. 

Co. 
Elwood  Window  Glass  Co 

1  furnace 

12  pots  

Elwood,  Ind  

Do. 

Estep  Glass  Co  

Frankton    Window    Glass 

2  furnaces  .  .  . 
1  furnam   .  .  , 

do  
do  

Marion,  Ind  
Frankton,  Ind  

Do. 
Do. 

Co. 
Globe  Window  Glass  Co 

1  tank 

30  blowers 

Findlay,  Ohio  

Idle  —  abandoned. 

Gem  Window  Glass  Co  
Getman  Glass  Works  

2  furnaces... 
1  furnace  

12  pots  
10  pots  

Dunkirk,  Ind  
A  venmore,  Pa  

Dismantled. 
Do. 

Hartford  City  Glass  Co..  .. 

2  tanks 

120  blowers  . 

Hartford  City,  Ind.. 

American       Window 

The  Hurrle  Glass  Co  

2  furnaces  . 

12  pots  

do  .... 

Glass  Co.  machines. 
Now  J.  G.  Co.,  idle. 

Ihmsen  Glass  Co  

do... 

22  pots  

Pittsburgh,  Pa  

Dismantled. 

Indiana  Window  Glass  Co.. 

do  

20  pots  

Pendleton,  Ind  

Do. 

Lawrence  Glass  Co  

1  tank  

45  blowers.  .  . 

New  Castle,  Pa  

American       Window 

McKee  &  Co.,  S... 

3  furnaces  

26  pots  

Pittsburgh,  Pa  

Glass  Co.,  idle. 
Dismantled. 

McCullv.  Wm.  P.,  A-  Co.... 

1  tank  

30  blowers.  .. 

do  

Do. 

Maring.  Hart  &  Co  

.   .  .do 

54  blowers  .  . 

Muncie,  Ind  

Do. 

Marion  Window  Glass  Co 

1  furnace 

10  pots 

Marion  Ind 

Do. 

Mahler  Glass  Co.,  J  

do.      ... 

do  

Du  Bois,  Pa  

Do. 

Monongahela  Window  Glass 
Co. 
Mutual  Glass  Co  

do  
..      do 

do  
8  pots  .     ... 

New  Eagle  P.  0.,  Pa.. 
Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Do. 
Do. 

Over,  C.  H  

1  tank... 

51  blowers... 

Muncie,  Ind  

Do. 

Ohio  Window  Glass  Co 

do 

30  blowers  . 

Arcadia,  Ind      .  .. 

Do. 

Pendleton   Window  Glass 

1  furnace  .... 

8  pots  

Pendleton,  Ind  

Do. 

Works. 
Phillips  Glass  Co 

f....do  

10  pots  

Do 

Quaker  City  Glass  Co 

\  1  tank  

36  blowers... 
10  pots 

Quaker  City  Ohio 

Do. 

f....do  

do  

(American        Window 

\1  tank 

51  blowers 

\    Glass  Co.  machines. 

Stewart-Estep  Glass  Co  
Shenango  Glass  Co. 

3  furnaces.  .  . 
1  tank 

26  pots  

Marion,  Ind  
New  Castle,  Pa  

Dismantled. 
American        Window 

Standard  Window  Glass  Co 

1  furnace 

10  pots 

Redkey,  Ind      

Glass  Co.,  idle. 
Torn  down. 

T.  Campbell  Co  

Thos.  Wightman  Glass  Co.. 
Union  Glass  Works  
United  Glass  Co  

Victor  Window  Gla^  Co 

2  furnaces... 
1  tank  
1  furnace  
1  tank  
do 

16  pots  
45  blowers... 
10  pots  
57  blowers... 
24  blowers 

Pittsburgh,  Pa  

Anderson,  Ind  
Orestes,  Ind  

Do. 

Abandoned. 
Do. 
Dismantled. 
Do. 

W.  K.  Jones  &  Co 

10  pots 

Do. 

Wells,  S.  K  

do 

do 

Greenfield   Ind      

Do. 

W.  C.  Deinimv  tv  Co  

1  tank  

48  blowers... 

Alexandria,  Ind  

Do. 

SCHEDULE   B. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Window-glass  factories  in  operation  in  1898 — Continued. 
EASTERN  DISTRICT. 


783 


Finn  name. 

Furnaces  or 
tanks. 

Pots  or 
blowers. 

Location. 

Remarks. 

Atco  Glass  Co  

1  furnace  — 
2  furnaces... 
do  

Spots  

Atco.  N.  J..., 

Idle. 
Abandoned 
Do. 

American 
Glass     Co 
doned. 
Converted 
use. 
Abandoned. 
Do. 
Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

Window 
.,     aban- 

to    other 

Baker  Bros.  &  Co  

16  pots  

Baltimore,  Md 

Christiana  Window  Glass 
Co. 
Cohansey  Glass  Manufac- 
turing Co. 

Cumberland  Glass  Manu- 
facturing Co. 
Edw.  R.  Wood    .           

do  

Wilmington,  T^Pl 

1  tank  

54  blowers... 
16  pots 

Philadelphia,  Pft 

2  furnaces... 
1  tank  

Bridgeton  N  J 

18  blowers... 
16  pots  

Millville  N.  J 

Franklin  Window  Glass  Co. 
Bennett  &  Co  

2  furnaces  .  .  . 
do  

Woodbury,  N.  J      » 

do  

Spring  City,  Pa 

Glassboro  Window  Glass  Co 
Henrietta  Window  Glass  Co 
Hires  &  Co  

11  furnace  — 

Spots  
29  blowers... 
18  blowers... 
16  pots  

JGlassboro,  N.  J  

do  

St.  Dennis,  Md  

2  furnaces  .  .  . 
1  furnace  
3  furnaces  .  .  . 
2  furnaces  .  .  . 
do  

Quinton,  N.  J.     ... 

More-Jonas  Glass  Co.  .... 

8  pots 

Bridgeton  N  J 

Norristown  Glass  Co  

30  pots 

Norristown,  Pa      .  . 

Henry  Seim  &  Co  

16  pots  

Baltimore.  Md  ..... 

Swindell  Bros  

do  

do  

Win.  King  &  Bro  

3  furnaces 

12  pots 

do 

United  Glass  Co  

1  tank  

48  blowers... 

Cleveland,  N.  Y  

NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


Bernhards  Bay  Glass  Co 

1  furnace 

10  pots 

Bernhards  Bay,  N.  Y 

Abandoned. 

Covington  Glass  Works  ... 

do.   ... 

8  pots 

Covington,  Pa     ...  . 

Dismantled. 

Elmira  Glass  Co  

1  tank  

36  blowers... 

Elmira,  N.  Y  

Do. 

Harding  &  Cummings.. 

1  furnace 

10  pots 

Berkshire  Mass 

Do. 

Washington  Glass  Co  

...    do.. 

8  pots 

Ithaca,  N.  Y 

Do. 

Wellsboro      Co-Operative 

....  do  

16  pots  

Wellsboro,     Tioga 

Idle. 

Glass  Works. 

County,  Pa. 

Window  glass  factories,  January,  191S. 
PENNSYLVANIA. 


Factory. 

Location. 

Hand. 

Machine. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

American  French  Belgian  Co        

Du  Bois            

30 
24 
36 

\lleganv  Window  Glass  Co 

Port  Allegany  
Brookville         .... 

24 

Brook  viLle  Glass  <t  Tile  Co 

Consolidated  Window  Glass  Co       

Bradford  

60 

36 

Eldred  Window  Glass  Co 

Punxsutawney..  . 
Shinglehouse  

36 
30 

Empire  Glass  Co  

30 
30 

Fairchance  Glass  Co                    

Fairchance 

Federated  Glass  Co  
Ithaca  Glass  Manufacturing  Co  

IparmPtte  Winrinw  Gla^q  Cn 

Point  Marion  
Spring  City  
Point  Marion  

36 

"'eo' 

24 

Kane  Window  Glass  Co 

Knnp 

60 

Kervin  Glass  Co  

Eldred  

30 

Masontown  Glass  Co 

Masontown 

30 

30 

New  Bethlehem  Window  Gla«  Co  ... 

New  Bethlehem.  .  . 
Kane 

Pennsylvania  Window  Glass  Co 

60 

Point  Marion  Window  Glass  C'o 

Point  Marion  
Smethport 

18 

Smethport  Glass  Co 

36 
24 

Wilcox  Glass  Co  

Wilcox  

American  Window  Gla^s  Co           .    . 

[Kane            .       

% 

I  Monongahela  

I  Belle  Vernon 

330 

198 

132 

ISO 

784 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Window  glass  factories,  January,  19  IS — Continued. 

WEST  VIRGINIA. 


Factory. 

Location. 

Hand. 

Machine. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

Banner  Window  Glass  Co        

South  Charleston. 
Charleston  

18 

Charleston  Window  Glass  Co  

36 

Clarksburg  Glass  fo                  

Clarksburg  

36 
48 
24 

Crescent  Window  Glass  Co  
Doddridge  Window  Glass  Co  .     

Weston  

West  Union 

Dominion  Window  Glass  Co  

Grafton  

36 

Dunkirk  Window  Glass  Co      

South  Charleston  . 
Buckhannon  

36 
36 
36 
24 
24 

Equitable  Window  Glass  Co  

Fairmont  Window  Glass  Co  

Fairmont  

Ideal  Window  Glass  Co  

West  Union  

Independent  Glass  Co  
W  A.  Jones  &  Co  

Sistersville  
Morgantown  

48 

Lafayette  Window  Glass  Co  
Manila  Window  Glass  Co  

Clarksburg  
Morgantown 

24 

30 

Modern  Window  Glass  Co  

Patterson  Glass  Manufacturing  Co 

Salem  

Cameron 

36 
14 
24 
24 

48 
36 

Peerless  Window  Glass  Co  

Clarksburg  

Salem  Cooperative  Window  Glass  Co  
Tuna  Glass  Co  

Salem  

Clarksburg      .  . 

West  Fork  Glass  Co  

do  

488 

36 

84 

30 

INDIANA. 

Blackford  Window  Glass  Co   .   . 

Vincennes 

30 

Johnston  Glass  Co  

Hartford  Citv  

60 

Vincennes  Window  Glass  Co  

Vincennes  

24 

Baur  Window  Glass  Co  

Katon  

36 

American  Window  Glass  Co  

Hartford  C'itv  

(h.b.)lOO 

30 

120 

100 

TEXAS. 

Wichita  Falls  Glass  Co 

Wichita  Falls 

36 

Texas  Glass  Co  

Texarkana 

30 

6G 

LOUISIANA. 

Caddo  Window  Glass  Co              . 

30 

Built  for 

W  o  r  k- 

48. 

ing30. 

OKLAHOMA. 

Baker  Bros       .            .            

'•  Okmulgt'o  

30 

Coflevville  Window  Glass  Co  

do  

54 

30 

54 

SCHEDULE  B. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Window  glass  factories,  January,  191S — Continued. 
OHIO. 


785 


Factory. 

Location. 

Hand. 

Machine. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

Operat- 
ing pots. 

Not  oper- 
ating 
pots. 

Camp  Glass  Co     

Mount  Vernon  
Maumee  

54 
30 

Case*&  Merry  Co  

Cole  Glass  Co  

Lancaster  

45 

Columbus  Glass  Co  

do  

36 

Enterprise  Glass  Co  

Sandusky  

30 

Licking  Window  Glass  Co  

Utica  

42 
24 
48 

Ohio  Central  Glass  Co  

Pleasantville  

Utica  Glass  Co                              ... 

Utica 

Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co  

Mount  Vernon. 

51 

Sandusky  Glass  Co  

Sandusky  

30 

228 

87 

75 

KANSAS. 


Caney  Window  Glass  Co       

Canev 

30 

Cheyenne  Window  Glass  Co  

do  

30 

Fredonia  Window  Glass  Co  

Fredonia  

48 

Mechanics  Glass  Co  

Chanute 

30 

Osage  Window  Glass  Co  

Independence  

30 

Sunflower  Glass  Co  

Cofleyville 

27 

United  Window  Glass  Co  

PoncaCity.Okla 

18 

Kansas  Glass  Co  

Cofleyville  

10 

126 

97 

STATEMENT  OF   WILLIAM  A.  STONE,  ON  BEHALF  OF    THE 
NATIONAL  WINDOW  GLASS  ASSOCIATION. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Dalzell,  I  believe  you  desired  to  have  Gov. 
Stone  make  a  statement  to  the  committee  at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Yes;  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well;  we  will  hear  from  Gov.  Stone. 

Mr.  STONE.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman;  it  will  be  an  accommoda- 
tion to  me  in  order  to  let  me  get  back  to  my  home,  although  there  are 
two  other  gentlemen  who  will  speak  more  particularly  of  the  statistics. 

I,  as  attorney,  represent  the  National  Window  Glass  Association. 
The  remarks  I  will  make  are  brief. 

This  industry  is  like  any  other  industry  that  depends  on  the  rule  of 
supply  and  demand,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  produced  or  capable 
of  being  produced  in  this  country  at  least  50  per  cent  more  window 
glass  than  can  be  consumed  in  the  country,  and  there  is  not  and 
never  has  been  any  exportation  of  window  glass. 

The  tariff  in  the  act  of  1909,  specified  in  Schedule  B,  paragraph  99, 
lixes  several  different  rates  for  different  kinds  and  sizes  of  window 
glass.  Under  the  first  and  second  brackets,  so  called,  the  window-glass 
makers  have  had  to  practically  abandon  the  manufacture  of  these 
brackets,  because  they  can  not  make  them  and  sell  them  at  a  profit, 
paying  the  present  wages,  and  also  nearly  all  used  here  are  imported. 

They  are,  however,  making  the  balance  of  the  glass  under  the 
schedule  and  are  paying  the  wages  which  the  workers  in  window  glass 


78959°— VOL  1—13- 


50 


786  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99—  WINDOW  GLASS. 

have  agreed  with  them  to  accept.  Their  scale  is  a  sliding  scale.'  If 
the  price  of  window  glass  increases,  the  wages  of  the  men  increase; 
and  if  it  lowers,  the  wages  of  the  men  do  not  lower. 

I  can  not  exactly  specify,  but  there  are  made  about  7,000,000  boxes, 
50  feet  square  in  a  box,  of  window  glass  in  this  country.  The  cost  of 
labor  is  60  per  cent  in  each  box  of  glass.  The  reduction  of  the  tariff 
at  present  fixed  on  all  the  brackets  but  the  first  two  would  result  in 
a  reduction  of  wages  or  a  suspension  of  work  in  the  various  glass 
factories. 

There  are  92  factories  in  this  country,  42  of  which  are  shut  down 
because  of  competition,  owing  to  the  fact  that  were  they  all  running, 
even  at  a  shut  down  of  from  two  to  five  months  each  year  on  account 
of  the  intense  heat  and  the  practice  that  has  governed  from  time 
immemorial,  they  could  produce  all  the  window  glass  that  is  con- 
sumed in  this  country  without  any  machine-made  glass. 

This  is  the  situation  with  reference  to  window  glass.  It  is  one  of 
that  peculiar  class  of  industries  that  must  be  considered  as  a  class  by 
itself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  not  an  arrangement  about  the  amount  of 
production  and  the  selling  price  among  these  glass  manufacturers  and 
manufacturers  of  window  glass  ? 

Mr.  STONE.  No,  sir;  there  is  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  asking  for  the  information  because  it  has  been 
stated  to  mo  that  they  all  quote  the  same  prices  to  the  purchaser. 

Mr.  STONE.  It  is  done  for  butter,  and  sometimes,  until  recently,  for 


The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  wholesale  purchasers  contend  that  no 
matter  what  factory  they  send  to  for  a  certain  class  of  glass,  at  that 
particular  time  the  quotation  price  is  always  the  same  from  them  all. 

Mr.  STONE.  That  nas  been  so,  I  take  it,  of  every  product,  even 
wheat,  ever  since  it  has  been  produced.  It  is  just  this  way,  that  the 
papers  give  the  market  every  morning,  and  people  who  have  prod- 
ucts for  sale  note  the  price.  Of  course,  a  man  might  put  his  own 
price  on  a  box  of  window  glass.  If  he  put  it  more  than  the  market,  he 
simply  could  not  sell  it.  If  he  put  it  less  than  the  market,  he  would 
lose  the  difference  between  the  market  and  the  price  he  asked.  That 
is  true  of  everything.  The  market  for  steel  rails,  the  market  for 
plows,  and  the  market  for  automobiles,  according  to  the  man's  make, 
must  be  necessarily  the  same. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  know  that  with  reference  to  some  things,  when 
you  come  to  iron  and  steel  products,  you  can  read  the  market  quota- 
tions in  the  paper,  but  always  you  have  to  pay  the  market  price. 
They  approximate  the  market  price,  but  sometimes  they  sell  con- 
siderably under  the  so-called  market  price.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is 
true,  and  I  am  asking  the  question  because  it  was  represented  to  me 
as  being  true,  that  the  quotations  on  window  glass  coming  from  these 
mills  were  always  the  same. 

Mr.  STONE.  I  will  tell  you,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  do  so,  that  there 
has  been  various  attempts  made  in  the  history  of  all  products  to  regu- 
late prices  and  production,  as  you  know.  Some  four  or  five  years 
ago  there  was  an  attempt  made  to  regulate  the  price  of  window  glass. 
However,  the  Government  prosecuted  those  parties,  and  indicted  them 


SCHEDULE  B.  787 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

all,  and  they  were  all  fined,  since  which  time  there  has  been  no  effort 
made  to  regulate  any  price  at  all  on  window  glass,  but  the  price  regu- 
lates itself,  just  the  same  as  the  price  on  every  other  product  regulates 
itself. 

One  of  the  largest  regulators  of  the  price  of  window  glass  is  the 
American  Window  Glass  Co.,  which  makes  machine  glass  and  makes 
at  least  50  per  cent  of  all  the  wondow  glass  consumed.  They  fix  their 
own  price,  but  if  anyone  produces  very  much  window  glass  or  very 
much  of  anything  and  would  undertake  to  fix  the  price,  they  would 
fail.  The  price  is  hardly  fixed  any  more  than  the  price  of  steel  stocks, 
for  instance.  We  like  to  see  what  it  sold  for  yesterday  to  find  out 
what  to  ask  for  it  to-day.  That  is  about  all  there  is  to  it.  Take  any 
produce  that  is  ever  produced,  I  do  not  care  what  it  is,  in  this  country, 
that  has  no  export  at  all,  and  is  only  sold  and  consumed  in  this 
country,  and  as  to  which  there  is  sharp  competition  among  producers 
necessarily.  That  competition  will  run  the  price  of  it  down,  and  then 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand  comes  in.  People  cease  to  make  it 
until  the  surplus  is  all  consumed,  and  then  they  wake  up  some 
morning  and  find  there  is  a  demand  for  some  more  of  the  product,  and 
they  start  in  and  the  price  goes  up.  But  there  is  nothing  regulates  the 
price  of  window  glass  except  the  old  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

Two  years  ago  there  was  more  window  glass  in  the  warehouses  than 
could  be  consumed  in  the  coming  year.  They  had  simply  overpro- 
duced, and  it  has  taken  all  of  this  time  to  use  up  this  surplus.  If  you 
could  only  fix  some  machine  or  some  law  that  would  simply  measure 
and  take  off  every  day  just  the  amount  to  be  consumed  that  day  and 
only  produce  that  amount,  then  there  would  be  no  hard  times  in 
this  country  and  no  trouble  at  all.  But  you  can  not  do  it  by  law, 
I  believe,  although  I  think  it  is  worth  while  to  try. 

Coming  back  to  the  question  of  window  glass,  there  is  not  to-day 
enough  profit  in  window  glass  to  justify  a  sale  at  a  less  price 
than  they  are  receiving  now.  The  moment  you  attempt  that, 
either  you  would  have  to  quit  making  window  glass  or  the  men  would 
have  to  have  their  wages  reduced,  and  they  are  not  getting  very 
large  wages  now. 

It  is  only  a  question  of  wages,  especially  with  a  product  that  has 
no  latent  value,  like  coal  or  anything  else  that  is  covered  up  and  you 
do  not  know  the  exact  amount  of  it,  or  like  timber.  Window  glass 
is  a  thing  you  can  sit  down  and  make  by  the  side  of  any  place  you 
can  discover  a  well  of  natural  gas.  It  does  not  require  very  much 
skill,  and  it  does  not  require  very  much  material.  You  have  a 
little  salt  cake,  a  little  limestone,  your  fuel,  and  some  labor.  These 
men  who  work  in  these  factories  know  every  inch  of  it  and  every  item 
of  it  and  the  cost  of  every  item,  just  as  well  as  the  manufacturers 
do,  and  they  keep  tab  on  that,  and  they  will  soon  seek  to  raise  the 
prices  prevailing  to-day.  What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  ?  You 
nave  to  yield  or  there  will  be  a  long  strike.  Sometimes  a  strike  is 
beneficial  to  the  producer  as  well  as  the  laborer  in  a  product  that  is 
like  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  I  understand  window  glass  is  made  out  of  lime 
instead  of  sand  ? 

Mr.  STONE.  I  did  not  say  out  of  lime  instead  of  sand. 


788  TABIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  understand  you. 

Mr.  STONE.  Of  course  we  put  sand  in  window  glass,  but  lime  goes 
into  it  too,  and  salt  cake,  so  called. 

Sand  is  the  principal  ingredient,  but  there  is  some  60  per  cent  of  it 
that  is  simply  nired  labor.  All  these  other  items  must  be  added  to 
that.  Then  you  get  the  sum  total. 

Since  1909  the  window-glass  companies  have  not  made  any  money. 
Why  ?  They  were  so  overcongested  and  overproduced  with  window 

f^.ass  that  for  two  or  three  years  after  the  tariff  law  known  as  the 
ayne  tariff  went  into  effect  it  took  three  years  to  eat  up  the  surplus 
glass  in  the  warehouses.  They  are  making  a  little  money^  now,  but  not 
very  much — very,  very  little— and  selling  the  product  which  they  over- 
produced some  time  ago.  They  will  overproduce  again  and  fill  up 
the  warehouses,  and  it  will  take  another  two  years  to  use  up  the  sur- 
plus; and  that  is  the  way  they  have  always  done  and  always  will  dp. 
If  you  can  reduce  the  wages  at  the  same  time  you  reduce  the  tariff  in 
the  law,  the  manufacturers  would  not  be  so  much  concerned,  from  a 
cold-blooded  viewpoint  of  the  proposition. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  notice  that  the  importations  are  greater  than  the 
domestic  productions,  so  the  duty  could  hardly  be  said  to  be  excessive 
in  the  present  law.  The  importations  are  more  than  the  domestic 
productions. 

Mr.  STONE.  You  mean  in  the  second  bracket  ? 

Mr.  PAYNE.  That  is  shown  by  the  statistics  submitted  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  STONE.  In  a  certain  bracket,  yes. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Cylinder  glass  and  window  glass. 

Mr.  STONE.  But  there  are  seven  divisions  of  the  cylinder  glass. 
The  first  is  SI. 38  tariff  on  a  certain  value.  Of  that  glass,  all  of  the 
glass  consumed  is  imported,  and  we  do  not  make  any  at  all.  So  it 
is  with  the  next  bracket.  Then  of  all  the  balance  of  the  brackets 
there  is  none  imported;  it  is  all  made  here. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  M.  NEENAN,  REPRESENTING  THE  NATIONAL 
WINDOW  GLASS  WORKERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  speaker  is  Mr.  J.  M.  Neenan.  We  will 
hear  from  you,  Mr.  Neenan. 

Mr.  JAMES.  To  what  paragraph  are  you  objecting? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  To  paragraph  99. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  desire  to  state,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  that  the  committee  in  whoso  behalf  T  am  making  this 
statement,  composed  of  W.  R.  Keagle,  Herbert  Thomas,  and  Frank 
J.  Walker,  members  of  the  executive  board  of  the  National  Window 
Glass  Workers,  represent  the  skilled  workmen  of  this  country  who 
arc  emplo3red  in  the  production  of  window  ^lass,  and  that  our  object 
in  appearing  before  the  House  Ways  and  Means  Committee  is  to 
present  a  plain  statement  of  facts  concerning  the  window  glass 
industry,  from  the  workers'  viewpoint,  and  by  so  doing  to  convince 
you  that  a  protective  tariff  is  necessary — that  without  it  the  working 


SCHEDULE  B.  789 

PARAGBAPH  99—  WINDOW  GLASS. 

and  manufacturing  interests  concerned  would  be  at  the  mercy  abso- 
lutely of  foreign  competition. 

We  take  it  mat  each  member  of  the  committee  that  we  are  address- 
ing, irrespective  of  political  affiliations,  is  desirous  of  seeing  American 
industries  flourish  and  expand,  and  that  none  of  you  would  know- 
ingly be  a  party  to  giving  an  advantage  to  a  foreign  competitor  at 
the  expense  of  American  industry. 

When  we  speak  of  foreign  competition  we  refer  particularly  to 
Belgian  manufacturers  and  workmen,  who  can  produce  annually 
about  5,000,000  boxes  each  of  50  square  feet  of  window  glass,  and 
whose  home  market  consumes  but  5  per  cent  of  their  product. 
Because  of  these  conditions  the  workmen  and  manufacturers  of  that 
country  have  been  forced  to  adopt  methods  of  production  that  would 
be  neither  desirable  nor  legitimate  in  this  country.  For  instance,  it 
is  customary  to  operate  factories  continuously,  no  rest  being  taken 
on  Sunday,  54  hours  constituting  a  week's  work  for  the  Belgian 
blower,  while  in  this  country  40  hours  constitutes  a  week's  work, 
the  American  blower's  work  week  commencing  at  1  a.  m.  Monday 
and  terminating  at  12  noon  Saturday.  It  is  also  customary  to 
employ  girls  in  the  Belgian  factories,  who  perform  a  certain  class 
of  unskilled  work  for  which  they  are  paid  at  the  rate  of  40  cents  per 
day.  The  same  class  of  labor  in  this  country  is  performed  by  men  or 
boys,  who  receive  from  $1.50  to  $2  per  day.  The  cost  of  materials 
entering  into  the  manufacture  and  boxing  of  window  glass  is  also 
much  cheaper  in  Belgium  than  in  this  country,  so  that  before  we 
approach  the  question  of  wages  paid  skilled  labor  there  is  a  substan- 
tial advantage  existing  in  favor  of  the  foreign  manufacturer. 

We  have  been  able  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  wage  contract  effective 
in  Belgium  at  the  present  time  and  find  that  wages  per  box  of  50 
square  feet,  single  strength,  are  as  follows  : 

Cents. 
Blower  ...................................................................  11.  2 

First  gatherer  ..............................................................     7 

Second  gatherer  ............................................................     2 

Crane  tender  ..............................................................     1 

Cutter  ...................................................................     5 

Flattener  ..................................................................     3.  5 


Total  ................................................................  29.  8 

In  this  country  wages  per  box  of  50  square  feet  of  single  strength 
are  as  foUows: 

Cents. 
Blower  ....................................................................  26 

Gatherer  .........................  ..........................................  20.3 

Flattener  ........................................  ..........................     7 

Cutter  .....................................................................  10.3 

Snapper  ...................................................................  12 

Total  ................................................................  75.6 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  the  American  manufacturer  pays 
about  two  and  one-half  tunes  as  much  for  skilled  labor  as  does  the 
Belgian  manufacturer,  and  it  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  this 
advantage  is  even  greater  than  it  appears  because  of  the  extra  amount 
of  production  secured  by  reason  of  factories  in  Belgium  being  kept 
in  operation  continuously. 


790  TAEIPP   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

It  will  perhaps  be  thought  that  the  American  manufacturer  is 
placed  at  a  disadvantage  by  being  compelled  to  pay  an  exorbitant 
wage,  and  I  wish  to  explain  that  the  average  workman  will  produce 
about  100  boxes  of  single  strength  window  glass  per  week,  each  box 
containing  50  square  feet,  as  nearly  as  sizes  will  allow,  and  that  wages 
will  average  as  follows: 

Blower $26.00 

Gatherer 20.80 

Flattener 28.08 

Cutter 25.87 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  above  rate  of  wages  is  not 
effective  for  a  whole  year,  as  it  is  not  possible  for  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  to  dispose  of  any  of  their  product  abroad 
in  competition  with  foreign  manufacturers  who  have  such  dis- 
tinct advantages  in  labor  and  raw  material  costs.  Neither 
has  it  been  possible  for  the  American  window-glass  workers  to 
labor  continuously  at  trades  that  require  such  heavy  drafts  on 
their  vitality,  not  only  because  of  the  recognized  unhealthfulness  of 
their  occupations,  but  because  of  the  extreme  heat  of  the  factories 
during  the  summer  months.  For  these  reasons  as  soon  as  the  wants 
of  the  home  markets  are  supplied,  factories  must  cease  operation. 
This  country  consumes  about  7,000,000  boxes  of  window  glass  annu- 
ally, and  with  the  present  number  of  factories  operating  it  is  possible 
to  produce  that  amount  in  8  months  time,  so  that  what  seems 
like  a  very  fair  wage  at  first  glance  does  not  seem  such  a  large  amount 
when  consideration  is  given  to  the  fact  that  the  amounts  earned  in 
8  months  must  be  distributed  over  a  period  of  12  months.  I  believe, 
gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  if  you  will  investigate  thoroughly 
the  status  of  the  window-glass  industry  in  this  country  you  will 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  any  radical  reductions  in  the  present 
tariff  rates  will  be  extremely  harmful  to  all  who  are  dependent  for  a 
livelihood  on  the  successful  operation  of  window-glass  factories. 

There  are  at  least  10,000  workmen  and  their  families  dependent 
upon  this  industry,  and  it  is  necessary  that  their  interests  be  given 
very  careful  consideration  before  any  action  is  proposed  that  will 
affect  their  future  welfare  as  would  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  rate, 
making  necessary  a  decrease  in  wages. 

For  the  past  three  and  one-half  years  the  window-glass  industry  in 
America  has  been  fairly  protected  by  a  tariff  rate  that  has  kept  the 
home  market  free  from  the  ruinous  foreign  competition  which  would 
ensue  upon  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  and  we  therefore  earnestly  urge 
that  you  report  against  any  reductions  of  the  present  rate,  knowing 
as  we  do  that  if  proper  protection  is  given  to  the  industry  upon 
which  we  are  dependent  for  pur  livelihood,  it  will  be  possible  for  us  to 
maintain  wages  at  a  point  in  keeping  with  the  ideals  of  American 
citizenship. 

In  conclusion  I  want  to  say  there  seems  to  be  some  misunder- 
standing concerning  the  ability  of  the  American  window-glass  workers 
with  regard  to  making  large  wages.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
the  average  skilled  workman  receives  about  $15  per  week.  When 
we  distribute  the  amount  earned  in  8  months  over  a  period  of  12, 
that  is  not  a  large  wage. 


SCHEDULE  B.  791 

PARAGRAPH  99^WINDOW  GLASS. 

As  I  have  explained,  the  wants  of  the  home  markets  can  be  sup- 
plied in  from  seven  and  one-half  to  eight  months;  so  that  after  the 
requirements  of  the  home  market  are  supplied,  we  have  to  stop  work. 
It  is  not  possible  for  the  American  manufacturer  to  get  into  the 
foreign  market  and  meet  the  foreign  competition,  particularly  the 
Belgian  manufacturers.  It  has  not  been  possible  for  him  to  get  rid 
of  any  of  his  product  outside  of  the  home  market.  For  that  reason 
we  feel  that  this  trade  of  ours  is  entitled  to  enough  protection  to 
enable  us  to  work  the  limited  time  at  our  disposal;  that  the  Belgian 
manufacturers  should  not  be  allowed  to  come  into  this  market  and 
interfere  with  us. 

I  believe  if  the  Sunday  work  and  the  cheap  unskilled  labor  cost 
were  eliminated  in  the  Belgian  industry,  the  American  window-glass 
worker  would  be  able  to  compete  with  the  Belgian  manufacturer 
and  the  Belgian  workmen.  I  do  not  believe  anyone  would  advocate 
a  plan  for  any  industry  which  would  tend  to  make  it  necessary  for  a 
skilled  workman  to  be  employed  on  Sunday  in  this  country,  and 
that  is  what  we  are  protesting  against  here.  We  do  not  want  to  be 
forced  to  meet  that  sort  of  competition,  and  we  hope  you  will  have 
that  in  mind  when  you  are  taking  up  this  schedule. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  work  for  this  company  here  or  appear  for  tbem  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  In  answering  that  question  I  will  say  that  I  am 
representing  the  Window  Glass  Workers'  Association,  the  national 
window-glass  organization  of  skilled  workmen. 

Mr.  JAMES.  In  what  capacity? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  am  president  of  the  organization. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  live  in  Port  Alleghany? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  I  live  in  Cleveland,  Ohio.  Our  headquarters 
are  at  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  say  you  attaine'd  the  present  rate  of  wages  through 
the  protection  which  is  afforded  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  believe  so.  I  do  not  believe  it  will  be  possible  for 
us  to  maintain  the  present  wages  if  the  tariff  is  reduced  to  any  con- 
siderable extent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes,  exactly;  but  do  not  the  laborers  in  the  prganiza-_ 
tion  of  which  you  are  the  president  have  anything  to  dt  with  main- 
taining the  wages  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir;  they  do.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  question 
of  the  American  manufacturer  selling  a  box  of  glass  in  competition 
with  a  Belgium  manufacturer  I  say  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
do  so  under  the  present  conditions. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  many  times  have  the  members  of  your  organiza- 
tion struck  for  higher  wages  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  believe  it  has  been  three  years  since  we  have  had 
a  strike. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Where  was  that? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  It  affected  seven  or  eight  different  States — Pennsyl- 
vania, West  Virginia,  Louisiana,  Texas,  and  Kansas. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  was  the  cause  of  that  strike  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  contended  at  that  time  for  an  advance  in  wages, 
I  believe,  of  15  per  cent.  That  was  about  three  years  ago,  if  I 
remember  correctly. 


792  TARIFF  HEABHTGS. 

PARAGRAPH  09— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Did  you  get  it  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  did  not. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Was  the  rate  upon  these  goods  the  same  as  it  is  now  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  the  selling  price  was  lower  at  that  time. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  am  talking  about  the  tariff  rate. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  It  was  before  the  revision  of  the  present  tariff.  It 
must  have  been  about  four  years  ago  this  winter. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Was  the  tariff  rate  increased  or  lowered? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  The  tariff  rate  at  that  time  afforded  the  American 
manufacturer  sufficient  protection  to  sell  his  goods  at  higher  prices, 
but  for  some  reason  or  other  they  could  not  get  the  higher  prices. 
Perhaps  it  was  due  to  overproduction;  I  do  not  know.  We  stopped 
work  in  the  middle  of  the  winter;  a  very  bad  time  for  us.  The  mem- 
bers of  our  association  were  dependent,  and  within  10  weeks  we  lost 
our  struggle. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  went  out  for  10  weeks,  trying  to  get  an  increase  of 
15  per  cent. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Have  you  investigated  to  see  how  this  tariff  rate  here 
compares  with  the  wages  paid,  the  per  cent  of  the  wage  paid  in  the 
production  of  a  given  article? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  What  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  In  other  words,  is  it  not  true  that  the  tariff  rate  here  is 
many  times  higher  than  the  amount  of  labor  it  takes  to  produce  an 
article  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  To  a  certain  extent,  perhaps,  that  is  true. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Are  you  not  asking  for  protection  that  is  many  times 
greater  than  the  labor  cost  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  believe  that  the  mistake  in  this  tariff  is  that  it  pro- 
tects, perhaps,  a  little  too  much  on  some  sizes  of  brackets. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  not  think  this  schedule  protects  too  much? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Are  you  not  asking  the  committee  to  give  a  rate  of  pro- 
tection that  is  many  times  the  labor  cost  of  the  article  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No ;  I  do  not  think  we  are,  except,  as  I  have  said,  on 
certain  brackets. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Certain  what  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  There  are  some  brackets  that  we  should  have  still 
greater  protection  on;  for  instance,  up  to  16  by  24  sizes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  think  the  rate  is  too  high  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No ;  I  think  we  should  have  more  protection. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  it  too  low  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  rate  ? 

Mr.  XEENAN.  One  and  three-eighths  cents. 

Mr.  JAMES.  And  you  think  that  ought  to  be  raised  to  what  ? 

Mr.  XEENAN.  I  think  if  it  was  raised  to  about  2  cents  it  would  give 
us  plenty  of  protection. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Do  you  sell  any  of  those  goods  abroad? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  do  not  import  any? 

Air.  NEENAN.  No;  we  could  not  do  that. 


SCHEDULE  B.  793 

PARAGRAPH  90— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  is  the  average  wage  per  week  to  the  people  em- 
ployed in  this  industry  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  The  average  is  about  $15  a  week;  that  is  pretty 
close  to  it. 

Mr.  JAMES.  About  $15  a  week? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes;  our  blowers  are  to-day  making  $100  a  month, 
and  we  will  work  seven  and  a  half  months  each  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  these  companies  give  you  any  assurance  that 
after  the  Payne  Act  of  1909  they  would  increase  the  wages  if  they 
could  get  an  increase  in  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  they  led  you  to  understand  in  any  way  that 
you  men  are  going  to  get  an  increase  in  wages  if  they  can  keep  this 
present  tariff  on  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  times  have  your  men  struck  hi  the  last 
10  years  for  higher  wages;  say,  since  1897? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  could  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  KTTCHIN.  Several  times  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  There  has  been  quite  a  lot  of  trouble.  Our  own 
organization  had  split  up  and  caused  trouble 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  They  never  gave  you  the  benefit  of  a 
tariff  until  your  organization  got  together  and  made  them  do  it  by 
striking  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  think  so.  There  was  a  tune  years  ago  when  the 
window  glass  workers  made  better  wages  than  they  are  making 
to-day,  and  we  got  the  benefit  of  the  tariff  rate. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  have  made  a  great  many  talks  to  your  men, 
when  they  are  assembled,  in  regard  to  wages,  have  you  not  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  you  not  always  taken  the  position  that  it  was 
your  organization  or  union  that  was  giving  you  the  higher  wages  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Not  altogether. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  laid  more  stress  on  that  than  anything  else,  did 
you  not? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  I  did  not;  but  I  know  almost  as  well  as  I  am 
standing  here  before  you  gentlemen  that  if  the  Belgian  manufacturer 
is  allowed  to  put  glass  down  in  the  New  York  market  that  he  can 
make  in  Belgium  for  95  cents  a  box,  we  can  not  meet  that  competition 
at  all. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  you  thought  the  manufacturers  would  give  you 
all  the  wages  that  you  are  entitled  to  under  the  protective  tariff  that 
they  are  enjoying,  you  would  not  advise  the  men  to  strike? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No,  sir;  I  would  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  thiiuk  they  have  come  to  a  point  where  they 
divide  up  the  tariff  and  give  you  all  that  the  present  tariff  will  stand  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No.  I  believe  that  if  this  present  condition  continues 
WP  will  be  able  to  secure  an  advance  in  wages  later  on,  through  the 
strength  of  our  organization. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  think  you  can  secure  it  through  your  union, 
but  they  are  not  going  to  give  it  to  you  themselves  ?  It  would  not  be 
accorded  you  without  a  strike  ? 


794  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  would  not  make  a  positive  assertion  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  do  you  think  about  that? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  believe  that  we  will  have  to  demonstrate  that  we 
are  able  to  get  it,  and  when  we  do  that,  they  will  see  that  it  will  not 
be  reasonable  for  them  to  undertake  to  fight  us.  If  they  are  pro- 
tected to  such  an  extent  that  that'can  be  made  up,  we  will  get  the 
wages;  but  if  they  are  not,  we  can  not  get  them. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  effect  have  these  bio  whig  machines  had  on  the 
blowers,  in  their  wages  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Do  you  mean  the  glass  blowers? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes,  glass  blowers.  I  do  not  mean  these  tariff  blow- 
ers; I  mean  glass  blowers. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  You  mean  the  people  I  am  representing.  We  have 
had  to  take  a  reduction  in  wages,  I  believe,  forced  on  us  through  that 
competition. 

Mr  KITCHIN.  You  have  had  to  take  a  reduction  in  wages  on  account 
of  these  machines? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  wouldn't  say  that — 

Mr.  KITCHIN  (interposing).  I  understood  you  to  say  that. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  I  didn't  say  that.  You  must  understand  that 
these  blowing  machines  do  not  eliminate  skilled  labor. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  manufacturers  always  come  here  and  ask  for 
tariff  not  for  themselves,  but  for  you  laboring  people — and  I  want 
you  people  to  go  in  and  get  your  part  of  it.  Those  fellows  come 
here  claiming  to  protect  you — 

Mr.  NEENAN  (interrupting).  I  do  not  believe  that;  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  believe  it? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No,  indeed;  I  do  not.  I  believe  that  if  there  is  a 
tariff  sufficiently  strong  on  window  glass  to  protect  the  workingman 
against  foreign  labor — we  can  not  work  for  40  cents  a  day — we  will 
keep  our  organization  intact,  and  we  will  make  the  manufacturer 
give  us  our  share  of  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  promise  to  do  that,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  These  laborers  get  an  average  wage  of  $15  a  week? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  The  skilled  workmen.  I  believe  the  average  wage 
of  the  window-glass  worker  to-day  is  $15  a  week,  when  you  figure 
what  he  makes  in  seven  and  a  half  or  eight  months  on  a  twelve- 
months basis. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  think  it  is  $15  a  week? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  About  815  a  week.  For  instance,  our  blowers  are 
making  about  $100  a  month. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  much  does  lie  make  for  the  tune  he  does  work? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  are  working  now,  and  the  blowers  are  making 
about  $104  a  month. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  taking  the  52  weeks  in  the  year  it  will  average 
about  $15  a  week? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  About  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Does  that  include  skilled  as  well  as  unskilled  labor? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  That  includes  four  different  departments  concerned 
in  this  industry — the  blowers,  gatherers,  flatteners,  and  cutters. 


SCHEDULE  B.  795 

PARAGRAPH  99     WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Skilled  as  well  as  unskilled  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  The  four  departments  are  skilled  trades. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Now,  taking  the  average  family  man  who  has  a  wife 
and  three  children — five  in  the  family — and  who  gets  $15  a  week; 
the  cost  of  living,  clothing,  housing,  etc.,  considered,  what  have  they 
left  at  the  end  of  the  year  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  They  have  nothing  left,  and  we  do  not  want  to  see 
them  get  less.  We  do  not  want  to  be  put  in  the  position  where  we — 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD  (interrupting) .  You  say  you  are  representing  the 
glassblowers  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir;  the  window-glass  workers. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Do  your  employers  know  that  you  are  here  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  suppose  they  do. 

Mr.  SHACKLEFORD.  Have  they  contributed  anything  to  the  ex- 
pense of  your  coming  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Absolutely  nothing. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  did  you  find  out  about  the  hearing? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Sir  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  did  you  know  that  a  hearing  was  in  progress  here  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  In  answer  to  that  question,  I  would  say  that  I  was 
here  last  spring  in  Washington.  I  have  had  my  mind  on  this  matter 
for  a  long  time.  I  communicated  with  the  secretary  of  Congress- 
man Campbell,  from  the  Kansas  district,  who  arranged  this  hearing 
for  me. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Were  there  any  suggestions  made  to  you  in  any  way 
by  the  companies  protected  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Absolutely  none.  This  matter  started  in  1893, 
when  the  tariff  was  revised.  I  was  not  in  the  trade  at  that  time; 
but  I  remember  that  about  50  per  cent  of  the  production  of  this 
country  was  curtailed  and  the  importations,  if  I  remember  correctly, 
amounted  to  over  2,000,000  boxes  of  glass,  and  the  consumption  at 
that  time  was  about  4,000,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  see  from  the  table  that  the  tariff  on  this  window 
glass  varies  from  about  38  per  cent  to  over  115  per  cent. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Don't  you  think  if  that  remains  as  it  is,  in  these 
times  of  the  high  cost  of  living,  that  you  can  squeeze  a  little  better 
wage  than  $15  a  week  for  skilled  labor? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  might  do  it.  I  would  like  to  see  something 
done  so  that  we  can  make  all  of  the  glass  used  in  this  country.  Four 
hundred  thousand  boxes  of  glass  come  into  this  country  that  we 
ought  to  make.  We  can  make  it  just  as  good  as  they  can  make  it  hi 
Belgium. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  About  how  much  was  the  American  output  of 
window  glass  for  1912,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  should  judge  something  around  $13,000,000.  I 
might  be  at  sea  on  that  and  I  would  not  like  to  say  positively,  because 
I  have  not  gone  into  it. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  In  1910  there  were  thirty-eight  millions. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Have  you  any  idea  how  much  we  actually  imported  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  I  have  not.  I  understand  that  there  has  been 
about  400,000  boxes  imported  a  year,  for  the  last  three  years. 


796  TABIFF   HEABLNGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Of  all  kinds  only  $827,868  worth,  including  cylinder 
and  crown  glass,  came  in  last  year — 

Mr.  NEENAN  (interrupting).  I  would  be  glad  to  have  the  informa- 
tion. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  think  that  much  is  cutting  any  ice  hi  com- 
petition with  $38,000,000  worth? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  it  is  not.  But  that  would  mean  two  weeks 
longer  work  for  the  window-glass  worker.  This  year  we  are  working 
seven  and  a  half  months.  If  we  had  that  production  we  could  work 
eight  months. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  am  afraid  the  manufacturers  have  made  you 
laboring  people,  you  people  who  do  this  work  and  turn  out  the  manu- 
factured product,  think  that  because  of  these  immense  "boatloads"  of 
glass  coming  in  here  and  competing  with  them  they  can  not  pay  you 
any  more  wages.  I  want  to  give  you  some  facts  so  that  you  can  go 
home  and  talk  to  them.  With  only  $827,868  of  all  kinds  coming  in 
here,  you  fellows  are  making  $38,000,000  worth  every  year. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  are  not  objecting  to  that.  If  it  does  not  become 
any  worse,  we  do  not  object;  naturally  we  would  like  to  make  that. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Then  there  is  not  very  much  competition,  is  there? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No ;  there  is  not.  For  the  past  three  and  a  half  years 
we  have  had  no  trouble — 

Mr.  JAMES  (interposing).  How  many  laborers  are  engaged  in  your 
business  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Unskilled  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  No;  altogether  in  the  glass  business? 

Mr.  NEEXAN.  About  10,000  men. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Ten  thousand  men,  and  they  work  seven  and  a  half 
months  a  year  ? 

Mr.  NEEXAN.  Yes;  but  after  the  factories  close  down,  the  un- 
skilled laborers  are  set  at  work  repairing  tanks  and  making  other 
necessary  repairs. 

Mr.  JAMES.  At  an  average  wage  of  $15  a  week,  and  still  there  is 
consumed  in  America  $38,051,000  worth  of  goods? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Are  you  sure  that  is  just  window  glass  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  This  is  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
we  take  that  as  authentic. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  That  is,  all  kinds. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes;  cylinder,  crown,  and  window  glass 

Mr.  NEENAN  (interrupting).  What  is  that? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  unpol- 
ished. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass;  yes. 
But  I  am  speaking  just  about  common  window  glass,  the  glass  that 
goes  in  your  sashes.  Crown  glass  we  do  not  make  at  all  in  this 
country. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  do  not  make  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Then  it  means  all  window  glass,  if  you  do  not  make 
crown  glass. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  It  is  being  sold  by  some  one  else.  It  is  being  im- 
ported, but  it  does  not  afl'ect  our  industry. 


SCHEDULE   B.  797 

PARAGRAPH  09— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Could  you  ascertain  for  us  the  total  cost  of  labor  in  the 
production  of  window  glass,  that  we  might  ascertain  whether  or  not 
this  46.38  per  cent  tariff  is  all  for  the  benefit  of  the  labor,  or  whether  you 
are  getting  10  per  cent  of  it  or  20  per  cent  of  it,  or  just  what  you  are 
getting  ?  Could  you  not  get  that  information  for  this  committee  and 
lay  it  before  us,  so  that  we  can  act  intelligently  upon  this  question 
as  to  whether  or  not  labor  should  be  protected  and  this  tariff  rate 
lowered  accordingly  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  You  mean  to  submit  that  later? 

Mr..  JAMES.  Yes;  submit  a  brief  and  give  us  the  information. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  will  be  very  glad  to  do  that.  You  must  under- 
stand that  we  have  men  who  are  members  of  our  association  who 
own  factories,  and  therefore  we  are  able  to  get  a  line  on  the  window- 
glass  industry,  I  believe,  better  than  any  other  class  of  organized 
workmen  in  this  country. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  you  come  here  and  ask  us  to  maintain  a  rate  of 
46.38  per  cent.  You  employ  men  seven  and  a  half  months  a  year  who 
get  an  average  wage  of  $15  a  week,  with  a  total  production  in  this 
country  of  thirty-eight  million  and  some  odd  thousand  dollars,  and 
yet  you  are  not  able  to  give  us  this  information  as  to  what  per  cent 
labor  gets  for  the  production  of  this,  and  how  much  of  this  tariff 
rate  the  manufacturer  is  pocketing  at  the  expense  of  the  consuming 
people  in  America. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  will  submit  that  to  you  later.  I  believe  there  is 
some  mistake.  I  think  they  have  other  kinds  of  glass  confused  with 
window  glass. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  This  includes  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window 
glass. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  they  say  they  do  not  make  any  crown  glass  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  That  is  all  included  in  the  $38,000,000. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  they  do  not  make  any  of  it  in  this  country  and 
it  is  not  included  in  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  was  your  statement,  was  it? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Then  this  is  window  glass — 

Mr.  NEENAN  (interrupting).  Is  that  a  statement  of  the  glass  made 
in  this  country  or  the  glass  sold  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  production. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  still  think  there  is  a  mistake  somewhere. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  are  here  as  the  representative  of  your 
organization  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  you  are  the  representative  of  the  National 
Window  Glass  Workers  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  succeeded  Mr.  Faulkner  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Mr.  Faulkner  was  here  before  this  committee 
three  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir;  he  appeared  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Representing  your  organization  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 


798  TARIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Therefore,  it  is  not  very  surprising,  as  Mr.  James's 
question  would  seem  to  indicate,  that  you  happened  to  know  that  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  were  holding  hearings  on  this  subject. 
You  regard  it  as  very  important  to  your  interests  to  know  when  a 
revision  of  the  tariff  is  contemplated  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  certainly  do. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  The  question  asked  by  Mr.  Kitchin  seemed  to 
imply  that  the  Payne  law  increased  the  duty  on  window  glass  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  It  did  not. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  It  did  not  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Do  you  know  whether  it  increased  it  or  not? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  It  decreased  it,  I  believe,  from  5  to  20  per  cent. 
There  was  a  readjustment  of  tariff  rates. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  One-eighth  of  1  cent  a  pound  in  each  bracket. 
So  that  you  would  have  had  no  ground  to  demand  an  increase  in 
wage  since  the  Payne  law  was  passed  on  the  theory  that  the  duty 
was  increased? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Generally  speaking,  your  organization  is  pretty 
well  satisfied  if  a  reasonable  proportion  of  the  profit  is  paid  in  wages? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir;  we  are. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  The  members  of  your  organization  are  practical 
workers,  and,  as  you  say,  a  number  of  them  own  factories  or  stock  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  They  own  factories. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  you  know  the  practical  nature  of  the  glass 
business  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  know  how  it  is  conducted  in  this  country  as 
compared  with  other  countries? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  you  know  the  rate  of  wages  paid? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  know  the  rate  of  wages  paid  to  the  men  who 
are  in  daily  competition  \vith  your  workmen? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  you  are  convinced,  as  a  body,  that  a  sub- 
stantial reduction,  or  possibly  any  reduction,  of  the  present  tariff 
would  work  you  direct  damage  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  am  convinced  of  that. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  And  that  is  the  reason  you  are  here? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  On  behalf  of  the  laborers? 

Mr.  NEENAX.  On  behalf  of  the  window-glass  workers. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  And  not  on  behalf  of  anybody  else? 

Mr.  XEEXAX.  And  on  behalf  of  the  unskilled  men.  The  unskilled 
men  employed  around  a  window-glass  factory  receive  better  wages 
than  the  ordinary  unskilled  man.  Hardly  a  man  employed  receives  any 
less  than  from  $2  to  $2.25  a  day,  or  wages  like  that.  That  is  not  a  large 
wage,  rnderstand  I  am  not  making  any  boast  about  that;  but  the 
unskilled  laborer  of  this  country  does  not  average  that. 


SCHEDULE   B.  799 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  The  average  of  $15  a  week  that  you  pay  is  the 
average  for  the  skilled  labor  and  the  unskilled  labor? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No;  it  is  for  the  skilled  labor. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Simply  for  the  skilled  labor  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  What  is  the  average  for  unskilled  labor  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  could  not  say.  I  suppose  the  unskilled  men  around 
the  window- glass  plant  will  make  $10  a  week. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  While  they  are  working,  or  for  the  year  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  For  the  year.  They  lose  very  little  time.  As  soon 
as  the  factory  stops  making  glass,  all  of  the  furnaces  have  to  be  re- 
paired and  they  are  employed  to  do  that  work. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  In  other  words,  they  average  that  day  in  and  day 
out,  whether  they  are  working  or  not  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  That  is  about  as  near  as  it  can  be  figured. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  a  representative  of  your  organization  appear  be- 
fore this  committee  in  1909? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes;  Mr.  A.  L.  Faulkner. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  He  took  the  same  grounds  then  that  you  have — that 
if  you  reduced  the  tariff  it  was  going  hard  with  the  laboring  man. 
Have  you  read  his  testimony  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  read  Mr.  Faulkner's  testimony.  Mr. 
Faulkner  made  a  fight  to  have  the  tariff  raised  so  as  to  include  the 
16  by  24  brackets,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  he  not  make  a  fight  against  any  decrease  or 
reduction  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  think  he  did. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Did  he  not  say,  like  you  say,  that  if  they  decreased 
or  reduced  the  tariff  it  would  be  hard  on  the  laboring  man? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  But  they  actually  did  reduce  it  from  5  up  to  20  per 
cent? 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  In  what  case  did  they  reduce  it  20  per  cent? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  He  said  from  5  to  20 — if  to  1J  and  If  to  If. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  You  are  speaking  of  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes.  When  the  tariff  act  of  1909  reduced  the  tariff 
on  window  glass,  did  they  reduce  your  wages? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  did? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Understand  that  the  reduction  in  wages  the  tariff 
did  not  affect  at  all.  The  reduction  in  the  wages  wasn't  brought 
about  because  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  did  not  reduce  your  wages  on  account  of  that 
reduction  in  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  me. in  to  say  that  you  are  getting  less  now 
than  you  got  when  the  Payne-Aldrich  Act  of  1909  was  passed  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Let  me  explain  that. 

At  that  time  there  was  an  artificial  condition  created  in  the  window- 
glass  industry.  There  was  the  formation  of  some  sort  of  an  organ- 
ization by  the  manufacturers,  the  price  of  window  glass  advanced, 
and  we  secured  a  very  substantial  increase. 


800  TABIFF   HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  After  1909  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  When  the  tariff  was  reduced,  your  wages  were 
increased  for  some  cause  or  another  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  For  that  reason;  but  then  the  Government  attacked 
the  manufacturers  and  the  prices  went  just  as  far  the  other  way. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Are  you  quite  sure  that  these  manufacturers  have 
not  fooled  you  men  into  the  belief  that  if  the  tariff  is  reduced  at  all, 
your  wages  will  be  reduced  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Absolutely  not.  They  have  got  to  get  it  either  by 
strike  or  by  being  able  to  convince  the  manufacturers  that  they  are 
able  to  get  it  somehow.  We  received  a  15  per  cent  advance  just  last 
fall  without  any  strike. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  ought  to  give  it  to  you  under  this  tariff,  surely. 
You  spoke  about  some  of  your  working  men  owning  stock  hi  factories. 
Do  you  own  any  stock  in  factories  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  are  head  of  your  organization  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  If  the  cost  of  labor,  say,  was  25  per  cent  to  produce  an 

flJT  LlClG 

Mr.  NEENAN  (interrupting).  The  cost  25  per  cent? 

Mr.  JAMES.  Yes.  Suppose  the  tariff  on  an  article  was  50  per  cent 
and  the  cost  25  per  cent.  Would  you  think  that  was  just  to  the  con- 
sumer or  to  the  laboring  man  either  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  No.  I  would  think  the  laboring  man  ought  to  get 
more  wages. 

Mr.  JAMES.  To  bring  it  down  to  the  final  analysis  you  would  ask 
this  committee  for  a  tariff  that  would  be  equal  to  the  labor  cost  of  the 
article  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  The  labor  cost  of  the  article  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  mean  between  this  country  and  abroad  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  That  would  mean  the  labor  cost  between  this 
countrv  and  Belgium  ? 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  difference  in  the  labor  cost  between  this  country 
and  abroad. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  ought  to  have  at  least  that  much,  and  we  ought 
to  have  more.  I  do  not  consider  our  wages  to-day  are  what  they 
ought  to  be.  We  want  to  get  more  wages.  Fifteen  dollars  a  week,  as 
you  have  brought  ou>t.  is  not  a  proper  wage  for  a  working  man.  I  do 
not  think  it  is. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Suppose  the  material  costs  more  here  than  abroad? 

Mr.  NEEXAX.  It  does. 

Mr.  PAYXE.  Suppose  those  gentlemen  do  not  provide  for  the  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  ot  materials.  Is  that  going  to  benefit  you?  You 
do  not  expect  the  manufacturers  are  going  to  pay  that  out  of  their 
own  pockets,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  NEEXAX.  Who  do  you  mean  provide  it  ?     The  tariff  committee  ? 

Mr.  PAYXE.  The  tariff  committee.     I  do  not  mean  you. 

Mr.  NEEXAX.  Why,  we  know  that  if  the  manufacturers  are  selling 
something  for  90  cents  that  we  can  not  make  them  pay  us  $1  to 
produce  it. 


SCHEDULE   B.  801 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Of  course  not.  Some  of  the  questions  seem  to  indicate 
that  you  could. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  realize  this,  that  if  the  manufacturer  does 
not  make  a  profit  your  wages  are  not  going  to  be  increased  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  realize  that  they  are  really  going  to  be 
reduced  or  that  you  will  lose  your  job? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes;  one  thing  or  the  other. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  realize  that  if  a  duty  is  put  on  this  article 
so  low  that  it  will  not  pay  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion here  and  abroad,  that  your  wages  will  either  be  decreased  or  that 
you  will  lose  your  jobs  entirely? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  is  the  reason  you  are  here;  in  an  effort  to 
prevent  the  duty  being  so  low  that  our  manufacturers  will  not  be 
able  to  compete  with  those  abroad  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  you  really  want  is  a  tariff  so  high  that  it  will 
keep  out  foreign  imports  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  would  not  say  that.  The  amount  of  glass  that  is 
coming  into  this  country  to-day,  we  can  get  along  on  that.  If  that 
condition  is  maintained  I  do  not  think  the  window-glass  workers  will 
have  any  cause  of  complaint.  But  as  I  have  stated,  I  believe  it  will 
be  better  to  have  that  maintained  so  that  work  can  be  done  by 
American  workmen.  It  would  be  better  to  do  that  than  to  have  the 
glass  made  in  Belgium,  if  it  can  be  arranged  in  any  way. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Some  remark  has  been  made  about  tne  cost  of  ma- 
terials, that  they  may  cost  more  abroad  than  here.  What  are  the 
materials  that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  window  glass  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Materials  that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  window 
glass? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Yes;  the  chief  materials. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Lime,  salt  cake,  carbon,  and  coal — not  coal,  carbon  is 
coal.  We  call  coal  carbon.  Sand,  lime,  salt  cake,  lumber — the 
lumber  is  for  the  boxes — silica  brick  for  repairing  the  tanks.  I  have 
a  note  I  would  like  to  read.  Sand  sells  for  80  cents  a  ton  in  Belgium, 
and  in  this  country  it  costs  upward  of  $2  a  ton;  coal  is  $3.50  a  ton  hi 
Belgium.  We  have,  of  course,  cheaper  coal  hi  this  country.  The 
Belgium  manufacturer,  in  order  to  reduce  the  cost  as  low  as  he  pos- 
sibly can,  compels  the  Belgium  glass  workers  to  double  up.  For  in- 
stance, what  would  be  a  48-blower  tank  in  this  country,  with  16  open- 
ings, would  only  have  8  openings  there,  and  2  men  would  be  worked 
at  each  one  of  those  places.  Lime  sells  for  97  cents  a  ton  over 
there.  I  am  not  positive  what  it  sells  for  here. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Lime  sells  for  90  cents  a  what  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  A  hundred.     I  should  have  said  a  hundred. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  know  that  lime  is  cheaper  here  than  any- 
where else  in  the  world;  that  they  make  it  cheaper  here? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  That  may  be.  I  will  not  have  much  to  say  on  lime. 
Salt  cake  is  $7.50  a  ton  hi  Belgium  and  it  is  $12  a  ton  here.  Lumber 
is  $17.75  to  $20— a  thousand  feet,  I  suppose  that  means. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 51 


802  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  We  are  shipping  lumber  to  Belgium  from  this  country  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  they  are  getting  it  cheaper  than  we  are  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  haven't  anything  to  say  about  that  if  they  are. 
I  know  that  it  is  dearer  than  that  here.  Tank  blocks  are  $13.50  per 
ton  and  in  this  country  they  are  $30  a  ton.  Silica  brick  is  $7.90  a 
ton  and  in  this  country  it  is  $30.90  a  ton. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  they  have  fooled  you  about  the  difference  in  the 
price  of  lime,  lumber,  and  coal,  they  might  have  fooled  you  about 
the  difference  hi  the  price  of  these  other  ingredients. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  We  know  what  the  price  of  coal  is. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  He  said  coal  is  cheaper. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  Coal  is  cheaper  here. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Tell  us  who  handed  you  those  figures? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  had  two  Belgian  window-glass  workers,  who  learned 
their  trade  in  Belgium  and  who  were  in  correspondence  with  the 
president  of  the  Belgian  Window  Glass  Workers'  Association,  and 
they  got  this  data  for  me  by  writing  to  him.  He  secured  that  data 
and  sent  it  to  these  men,  and  they  came  into  my  office  a  week  ago  last 
Saturday  and  gave  me  this  information. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Suppose  you  file  that  letter  from  the  president  of 
that  association,  if  you  have  it  ? 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  would  have  to  get  it  from  the  parties  that  came 
into  my  office. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Suppose  you  file  that  letter  with  this  committee  if 
you  can  do  it. 

Mr.  NEENAN.  I  will.  I  also  secured  a  contract  that  the  Belgian 
window-glass  workers  are  compelled  to  sign  before  they  can  accept 
a  place.  I  believe  I  have  that  with  me.  That  would  not  be  of  much 
interest  to  you.  as  it  does  not  enter  into  the  cost;  but  it  shows  the 
conditions  under  which  they  are  working. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  Are  they  the  only  people  that  are  making  window 
glass  that  are  competing  with  us  ? 

Mr.  NEEXAX.  Practically  so.  France  has  a  duty.  France  had  to 
establish  a  tariil'  rate.  The  English  did  not  establish  a  tariff  rate  and 
they  have  driven  the  English  manufacturer  out  of  the  market,  prac- 
tically speaking. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  believe  Belgium  is  the  country  that  has  exported 
all  of  this  window-glass  goods  to  this  country? 

Mr.  NEEXAX'.  I  would  not  say  that  positively. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  really  do  not  know? 

Mr.  NEEXAX.  1  believe  the  greatest  percentage  of  it  is  from 
Belgium. 

The  CHAIRMAN*,  is  that  all,  gentlemen? 

Mi\  NEENAN*.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say.     I  thank  you. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


803 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

STATEMENT  OF  H.  R.  HILTON,  ESQ.,  ON  BEHALF    OF  THE  NA- 
TIONAL WINDOW  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  for  your 
guidance  in  considering  the  schedule  on  window  glass,  paragraph  99, 
I  simply  want  to  give  you  a  few  facts  from  the  manufacturers' 
standpoint: 

Window  glass  is  manufactured  to-day  in  eight  States,  viz,  Penn- 
sylvania, West  Virginia,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Oklahoma,  Texas, 
and  Louisiana. 

The  industry  produces  about  5,000,000  boxes  of  single-strength 
glass  and  2,000,000  boxes  of  double-strength.  Total,  7,000,000  boxes. 
Value,  approximately  $15,000,000. 

This  industry  employs  12,000  workmen  in  the  several  factories,  72 
per  cent  of  those  in  the  hand  plants  being  skilled  workmen. 

About  60  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  manufacturing  a  box  of  window 
glass  is  labor  and  the  material  used  has  as  large  a  proportion  of  labor 
in  its  cost. 

The  window-glass  industry  of  the  United  States  to-day  consumes 
and  furnishes  a  market  in  each  year  for  160,000  tons  of  sand,  70,000 
tons  of  salt  cake  or  soda  ash,  60,000  tons  of  ground  limestone, 
50,000,000  feet  of  lumber,  and  3,200  tons  of  coal  carbon. 

Both  coal  and  natural  gas  are  used  as  fuel  in  manufacturing  win- 
dow glass.  If  all  the  factories  used  natural  gas,  the  yearly  consump- 
tion would  be  14,000,000,000  cubic  feet.  If  all  the  factories  used  coal, 
then  400,000  tons  of  coal  would  be  consumed. 

The  manufacture  of  window  glass  hi  the  United  States  by  either 
hand  or  machine  process  is  impossible  without  the  aid  of  a  protective 
tariff.  To  sustain  this  statement,  we  submit  the  following: 

Comparative  table  of  labor  cost,  48-blower  factory. 

SKILLED  LABOR. 
[50-foot  boxes  s.  s.] 


Belgium. 

United  States. 

Weekly  production  (54  hours)  per  shop, 
140  boxes  s.  s. 

Cost  per 
box. 

Weekly  production  (40  hours)  per  shop, 
104  boxes  s.  s. 

Cost  per 
box. 

Blower  

511.20 

Blower  

$26  00 

Gatherer                   

7.30 

Gatherer    

20  80 

Second  gatherer  

Crane  tender 

2.00 
1.00 

Snapper  

.  Cutter        

12.00 
10  35 

Cutter  

5.00 

'••  Flattener  

10  92 

Flattener. 

3.50 

30.00 

80.07 

Relative  cost  

37.50 

Relative  cost  

100  00 

804  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Comparative  table  of  labor  cost,  48-blower  factory — Continued. 

UNSKILLED  LABOR. 


Belgium. 

United  States. 

Weekly. 

Total. 

Weekly. 

Total. 

1  bookkeeper  

$7.50 
3.00 
7.50 
12.50 
6.25 
6.25 
5.25 
3.50 
1.75 
1.75 
4.20 

$7.50 
3.00 
7.50 
12.50 
12.50 
12.50 
10.50 
28.00 
14.00 
10.50 
126.00 

1  bookkeeper  

$18.  75 
12.50 
21.00 
19.50 
19.50 
15.00 
15.00 
11.50 
10.50 
8.00 
11.00 

$18.  75 
12.50 
21.00 
19.50 
39.00 
30.00 
30.00 
92.00 
84.00 
48.00 
330.00 

1  stenographer  

1  stenographer 

1  master  teaser  

1  master  teaser  

1  machinist  

1  machinist. 

2  blacksmiths  

2  blacksmiths  

2  box  makers  

2  hnx  makers 

2  packers  

2  packers  

8  tear  tenders  (girls)  

8  fehr  tenders  

8  shove  boys  (girls)  

8  shove  boys  

6  roller  boys  (girls)  

6  roller  boys  

30  laborers  

30  laborers  

Relative  cost  

244.50 

694.  75 

35.18 

100.00 

Comparative  table  of  cost  of  material. 


Belgium. 

United 
States. 

Sand,  per  ton  

$0.80 

$2.00 

.97 

2  40 

Salt  cake,  per  ton         

7.50 

12.00 

17  75 

21  00 

Coal,  per  ton  .                                

3.50 

2.  25-2.  70 

TanK  blocks  

13.15 

30.00 

Silica  bricks  

7.90 

30.90 

Coal  is  the  only  item  of  cost  that  is  higher  in  Belgium  than  in  the 
United  States,  but  the  average  of  all  material  used  is  much  less  in 
Belgium. 

Of  the  5,000,000  boxes  of  single-strength  glass  made  annually  in 
the  United  States,  consumers  call  for  50  per  cent  in  the  small  sizes 
up  to  16  by  24.  The  poorest  glass  is  usually  cut  into  the  first  bracket 
(25  united  inches),  or  all  sizes  up  to  10  by  15,  and  represent  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  production.  These  sizes  always  come  in  excess  of 
the  demand  both  in  Belgium  and  the  United  States,  and  the  country 
is  always  overstocked  with  them.  In  consequence,  ic  is  only  in  rare 
instances  that  a  manufacturer  can  sell  this  product  at  cost  price, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  on  these  small  sizes  of  third  single  the 
skilled  workman  receives  not  more  than  S2  to  $2.25  per  day. 

The  Pacific  coast  consumes  about  10  per  cent  of  the  glass  used  in 
the  United  States,  and  yet  United  States  factories  can  not  compete 
with  Belgium  in  Pacific  coast  market  in  these  small  sizes  at  the 
present  tariff,  as  the  following  table  will  show: 

BELGIUM. 

1  box  10  by  15  third  single  at  Antwerp  (selling  price) $0.  75 

Freight  to  San  Francisco  as  ballast  in  tramp  steamers,  52  pounds,  at  35  cents 

per  100 18 

Duty,  1-jj-  cents  per  pound  on  52  pounds 72 

1.65 


SCHEDULE  B.  805 

PARAGBAPH  09— WINDOW  GLASS. 

UNITED   STATES. 

1  box  10  by  15  third  single  at  factory  (cost  price) $1.  50 

Rail  freight  to  San  Francisco,  at  90  cents  per  100  (70  pounds) 63 

2.13 

This  statement  does  not  figure  any  profit  to  the  American  manu- 
facturer and  shows  that  the  American  manufacturer  can  not  recover 
the  market  for  small  glass  on  the  Pacific  coast  from  Belgium  factories 
unless  protected  by  a  tariff  of  2£  cents  per  pound  on  the  first  bracket 
and  2  cents  per  pound  on  the  second  bracket,  except  by  a  marked 
reduction  hi  cost  of  labor,  and  this  is  scarcely  feasible  under  present 
conditions  and  present  cost  of  living. 

Belgium  reaches  all  our  Atlantic  seaport  cities  at  less  freight  cost 
than  can  any  United  States  factory,  and  this  advantage  is  more 
marked  in  the  Gulf  ports,  which  give  Belgium  a  better  rate  to  St. 
Louis  and  all  points  south  and  west  of  it  than  is  open  to  any  Penn- 
sylvania or  West  Virginia  factory. 

Window  glass  to-day  is  a  cheap  product.  The  window  glass  in  a 
$1,000  home  will  cost,  about  $7.50,  or  three-fourths  of  1  per  cent  of 
the  total  cost.  A  $1,600  home  can  be  glazed  with  second  double 
glass  for  $16,  and  with  third  single  for  $10.  The  glass  in  the  house  per 
square  foot  costs  less  than  the  lumber. 

The  history  of  window-glass  manufacturing  during  the  past  six 
years  is  strewn  with  financial  wrecks.  The  average  of  all  the  hand 
factories  shows  a  business  without  profit.  The  only  way  open  to 
reduce  further  the  cost  of  window  glass  is  by  reducing  the  cost  of 
labor. 

The  cost  of  a  box  of  first  bracket  third  single  American  glass 
delivered  in  Atlantic  seaport  cities  is  $1.65.  The  present  selling 
price  in  these  cities  is  $1.63  per  box.  This  makes  a  loss  of  2  cents 
per  box  to  the  American  manufacturer  at  eastern  ports,  and  a  loss  of 
48  cents  per  box  in  meeting  Belgium  selling  prices  at  Pacific  ports. 

On  this  small  glass  the  manufacturer  has  nothing  to  concede 
because  he  has  no  margin,  and  if  a  reduction  of  tariff  is  made  it  must 
follow  that  either  labor  must  stand  a  reduction  in  wages  equal  to  the 
reduction  in  tariff  or  the  manufacture  of  window  glass  in  the  United 
States  must  cease. 

The  competition  between  American  hand  and  machine  factories 
gives  greater  assurance  of  a  lower  price  for  window  glass  to  the  con- 
sumer than  would  be  probable  with  control  of  the  market  of  the 
United  States  absolutely  in  the  hands  of  as  strong  a  syndicate  of 
window-glass  manufacturers  as  now  exists  hi  Belgium  that  now 
controls  and  fixes  the  prices  for  all  the  open  markets  in  the  world. 

We  hope  your  committee  will  consider  the  interests  of  the  work- 
men of  whose  interests  the  manufacturers  have  not  been  unmindful 
since  they  have  agreed  to  share  with  their  skilled  employees  any 
advances  that  may  be  made  in  prices,  but  that  you  will  also  consider 
the  interests  of  a  business  in  which  dividends  are  rare  and  in  which  in 
the  past  six  years  the  losses  have  exceeded  the  profits. 

We  ask  the  privilege  of  submitting  further  data  at  a  future  time, 
to  be  named  by  the  committee. 


806  TABHT  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

This  statement  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  committee  on  tariff 
for  Window  Glass  Manufacturers'  Association,  composed  of  J.  S. 
Walker,  secretary;  Myron  L.  Case,  O.  C.  Teague,  Frank  Bastine,  and 
myself  as  chairman. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Mr.  Hilton,  did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the 
American  production  averaged  $15,000,000  a  year? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes,  sir.  That  estimate  is  based  on  the  present 
market  price,  which  is  the  best  price  we  have  had  in  seven  years,  with 
one  exception. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  What  does  that  cover?  Does  that  cover  anything 
but  common  window  glass  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Nothing  but  common  window  glass. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  It  does  not  include  cylinder  or  crown  glass  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  think  there  is  a  good  deal  of  misunderstanding  about 
that.  The  use  of  the  words  "cylinder"  and  "crown"  comes  down 
to  us  from  an  old  system.  I  think  they  used  to  call  all  window  glass 
crown  glass,  because  it  was  made  by  a  different  process;  and  then  it 
has  been  called  cylinder  glass.  I  think  these  are  all  one.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  such  thing  as  crown  glass  or  cylinder  glass  as  distin- 
guished from  window  glass  to-day.  That  is  my  judgment;  I  may 
not  know,  but  I  have  always  put  that  interpretation  upon  it. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  The  figures  that  are  furnished  the  committee  here 
show  the  production  of  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass 
in  1910  was  over  $38,000,000. 

Mr.  HILTON.  That  is  inevitably  an  error  if  it  applies  to  window 
glass,  because  that  is  an  impossible  figure.  If  the  manufacturers  had 
received  half  that  amount,  or  $19,000,000  for  their  product,  they  would 
all,  or  nearly  all,  have  been  able  to  pay  some  dividend  this  year  or 
during  the  past  year. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  they  have  not  paid  any 
dividend  under  the  Payne  Act,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Is  that  on  account  of  the  reduction  of  the  tariff 
under  the  Payne  Act  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  was  on  account  of  competition  among  ourselves 
and  a  lowering  of  the  price  among  ourselves  and  in  competition 
between  machine  and  hand  plants. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  say  the  figures  of  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  must  be  wrong  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  is  an  impossible  figure  if  it  applies  to  the  window- 
glass  production  in  this  country  in  one  year. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  In  discussing  the  possibility  of  a  reduction  of  the 
duty  on  window  glass,  you  mentioned  the  cost  of  your  materials 
manufactured. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  you  aware  that  certain  bills  have  passed  the 
House  already,  and  which  are  possibly  again  under  consideration, 
which  will  reduce  the  duty  upon  those  materials?  For  example, 
one  of  tho  things  you  mentioned  was  lumber.  Lumber  was  put 
upon  the  free  list  in  the  Democratic  bill.  Soda  ash  was  cut  from 
one-quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound  to  one-eighth  of  a  cent;  and  salt  cake, 
at  $1  a  ton,  has  been  taken  off  and  put  upon  the  free  list.  Then  there 


SCHEDULE   B.  807 

PARAGRAPH  99  -WINDOW  GLASS. 

is  the  further  possibility  of  duties  upon  lime  and  coal  being  reduced, 
combined  also  with  the  fact  that  the  United  States  sand  is  supposed 
to  be  the  best  in  the  world. 

Mr.  HILTON.  The  cost  of  nearly  all  that  material  is  a  labor  and 
transportation  cost. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  That  was  the  basis  of  your  argument,  as  I  under- 
stood it,  and  I  only  call  these  matters  to  your  attention. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Of  course,  if  the  duty  is  taken  off  salt  cake  there 
would  be  a  very  slight  advantage  there ;  but  it  would  not  be  a  material 
one  in  the  total  cost. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  advance  that  as  a  great  impediment  in  your 
competing 

Mr.  HILTON.  No;  I  simply  wanted  to  point  out  the  difference 
in  price  of  material  between  the  two  countries,  the  disadvantage  we 
are  at  regarding  all  of  the  items. 

The  amount  would  be  very  small.  The  reduction  on  the  one  item 
of  salt  sake  or  soda  ash  would  be  perhaps  $1  a  ton.  •  We  are  paying 
$12  now;  we  might  get  $11.  If  we  got  it  for  $11  it  would  be  a  slight 
advantage,  but  a  reduction  of  tariff  on  sand  and  limestone  would  not 
help  much  at  inland  points.  At  present  it  is  practically  all  a  labor 
and  transportation  cost. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Those  were  your  own  arguments,  and  what  is 
sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander. 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  are  simply  showing  the  difference  there  is  be- 
tween our  total  cost  and  the  cost  in  Belgium,  and  that  on  smaller  sizes 
is  about  80  cents  a  box.  And  I  want  to  show  where  we  may  do  it. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  We  want  to  lighten  some  of  the  burden  on  you. 

Mr.  HILTON.  You  will  lighten  it  about  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per 
box.  We  get  the  sand  at  our  door  and  grind  it  ourselves.  We  could 
not  put  it  on  the  cars  at  all  and  bring  it  from  New  York,  or  any  sea- 
port, for  less  than  $1.50  a  ton. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Coal  is  the  important  item  in  the  production  of 
window  glass? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  The  most  important  of  all  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  But  we  are  nearer  to  the  coal  mines  than  to  the 
seaports. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  It  is  more  important  than  lumber  and  soda  ash  and 
salt  cake,  the  other  costs  you  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  It  is  more  important  than  all  combined  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  would  not  say  that. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  They  get  coal  in  Belgium  25  and  30  per  cent  cheaper 
than  you  can  get  it  here  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No;  the  coal  is  higher  there. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  mean  higher  in  Belgium  than  it  is  here. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  The  coal  is  in  your  favor  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  the  coal  is  hi  our  favor  at  present. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Does  not  that  more  than  offset  the  other  advantages 
that  they  have  over  there  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No;  they  still  have  the  advantage  in  material,  not- 
withstanding the  advantage  we  have  on  coal. 


808  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  the  advantage  in  mate- 
rial did  not  amount  to  much. 

Mr.  HELTON.  Looking  at  it  from  this  standpoint,  the  raw  material 
in  a  box  of  glass  itself  is  not  more  than  20  per  cent  of  the  entire  cost. 
You  can  not  figure  the  percentage  of  reduction  on  the  whole  cost  of 
the  box.  You  can  only  figure  it  on  the  part  of  it  that  the  material 
enters  into.  So  that  a  5  or  10  per  cent  reduction  on  one-fifth  of  that 
cost  does  not  make  much  of  a  reduction  on  the  total  cost  of  the  box. 

Mr.  JAMES.  In  speaking  of  glass,  as  to  its  production,  that  includes 
making  window  glass  of  all  sorts,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  Treasury  Department  says  that  the  production  in 
this  country  in  1910  was  $38,055,297. 

Mr.  HILTON.  They  must  have  taken  a  different  basis  of  valuation 
and  of  selling  price.  There  is  not  more  than  5  to  8  per  cent  difference 
in  the  selling  price  of  all  the  factories. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  say  in  1905,  under  the  Dingley  tariff,  the  pro- 
duction was  $33,308,712. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Then  there  is  a  different  basis  of  valuation  from  that 
which  the  glass  is  actually  sold  at  every  factory,  because  we  have 
never  approached  half  that  price  in  any  year,  on  the  market  we  have 
had. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Has  the  price  of  soda  ash  gone  down  in  the  market  in 
the  last  four  years? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do  not  use  it  myself.  I  use  salt  cake.  There  is 
probably  a  slight  reduction,  but  not  very  much.  It  has  held  at  a 
very  uniform  price.  I  am  not  myself  a  user  of  it,  and  I  am  not  very 
familiar  with  it. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Lumber  costs  you  more  now  than  it  did  four  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  this  year  it  is  15  per  cent  higher  than  last  year. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Soda  ash  was  reduced  from  three-eighths  to  one- 
fourth  of  a  cent  and  lumber  from  $2  to  $1.25.  If  they  have  gone  up, 
I  do  not  see  the  advantage  of  reducing  them  again. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  He  says  that  soda  ash  has  gone  down,  and  the 
probability  is  if  they  do  not  put  lumber  on  the  free  list  it  will  soar 
up  to  the  skies. 

Mr.  HULL.  Do  you  think  of  any  other  glass  which  might  be  included 
in  this  Treasury  estimate  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No.  There  may  be  something  there  I  do  not  know 
about. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  claim  the  raw  material  in  the  manufacture  of 
this  glass  is  a  good  deal  lower  in  Belgium  than  in  this  country? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  "VVhat  per  cent  of  the  finished  product  is  represented 
by  the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  About  20  per  cent  is  raw  material. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Twenty  per  cent  is  the  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  is  labor  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Labor  is  60  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  includes  salary  of  officers,  sales  agents,  and 
everything  of  that  kind,  bookkeepers,  and  so  forth? 


SCHEDULE  B.      .  809 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  All  that  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  are  the  wages  of  what  are  called  wage  earn- 
ers— not  including  the  clerical  force,  agents,  and  salaried  officers  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  The  lowest  wage  we  pay  is  $1.75  per  day;  the  average 
to  unskilled  labor  is  $2. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  percentage  of  this  cost  of  the  product  is  paid 
to  the  wage  earners  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Close  to  60  per  cent — it  will  be  over  56  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  say  that  lime,  lumber,  and  coal  are  the  chief 
ingredients  of  this  raw  material ;  that  is,  the  most  costly  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  not  know  we  are  exporters  of  lime,  and  that 
lime  is  cheaper  here  than  it  is  in  Belgium. 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  are  paying  90  cents  a  ton  at  the  quarry,  75  cents 
of  this  cost  being  labor. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Where  did  you  get  that  inf ormation  ?  It  must  have 
been  from  the  gentleman  over  in  Belgium,  about  whom  our  young 
labor-organization  man  was  speaking. 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  have  it  from  three  or  four  different  sources. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  had  identically  the  same  figures.  You  said 
the  lumber  cost  you  more  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Don't  you  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  are  export- 
ing to  Belgium  every  year  millions  and  millions  of  feet  of  lumber  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  that  we  shipped  to  Belgium  last  year  over 
$70,000,000  worth  of  box  boards? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Is  not  that  exported  from  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HILTON.  That  is  where  they  get  it.  They  have  as  good  a  rate 
to  Antwerp  as  we  have  to  New  York,  and  they  get  delivery  by  water, 
while  we  have  to  pay  the  charges  from  the  docks  to  the  factory. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  they  carry  it  from  the  seacoast  to  Belgium  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  then  get  a  cheaper  rate  than  people  shipping 
across  the  Continent? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes.  I  am  sure  they  have  a  cheaper  rate  to  Ant- 
werp than  we  can  get  around  Cape  Horn  on  a  vessel  to  New  York. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  They  can  carry  it  from  Oregon  or  Washington  or 
California  around  the  Cape  and  sell  it  to  Belgium  cheaper  than  you 
can  get  the  lumber? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Cheaper  than  we  can  get  the  same  lumber. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  same  lumber? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes.  The  distance  from  Puget  Sound  to  Antwerp 
by  water  is  no  greater  than  to  New  York. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Where  do  you  get  your  lumber  from  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  get  some  of  it  locally.  We  are  paying  $21  a 
thousand  to-day;  we  paid  $17.50  last  year.  It  was  cut  right  in* the 
vicinity,  and  there  was  only  a  switching  charge  to  pay  for  its  trans- 
portation. 


810  .TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  not  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  present 
rate  is  practically  prohibitive;  that  you  practically  have  no  compe- 
tition at  all  from  foreigners,  or  from  Belgium,  on  window  glass? 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  have  competition  on  first  bracket  glass,  because  it 
is  a  by-product  with  them,  or  a  waste  product,  and  they  sell  it  very 
cheap,  sell  it  as  a  very  cheap  product,  and  we  are  doing  the  same. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  not  statistics  show  that  of  every  $100  worth  of 
window  glass  sold  and  consumed  in  this  country  less  than  2  per  cent  is 
imported  here  ? 

Mr.  HELTON.  Yes,  I  know  it  is  small. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  sell  98  per  cent,  and  the  foreigner  sells  only 
2  per  cent;  that  is,  out  of  every  $100  you  sell  $98,  and  the  foreigner, 
from  all  over  the  world,  $2.  And  you  do  not  think  this  rate  is 
prohibitive  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Let  me  make  this  point:  The  competition  with  them 
is  practically  on  the  small  glass. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  do  you  call  small  glass,  15,  14  by  20  inches? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Up  to  10  by  15  and  14  by  20  inches. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  many  square  inches  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Twenty-five  united  inches.     That  is  the  first  bracket. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  kaow  how  much  of  that  came  in  last  year, 
the  amount  you  actually  compete  with,  or  the  amount  that  actually 
competes  with  you,  of  that  size  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  only  know  what  the  total  production  is.  I  do  not 
know  the  total  of  that  particular  bracket. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  How  much  would  you  imagine? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Not  1  per  cent  of  what  you  make. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Very  well;  but  we  make  more  of  that  than  the 
country  will  take,  and  we  have  to  sell  it  at  a  loss,  anyway. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Oh,  yes;  you  sell  it  at  a  loss? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  we  sell  it  at  a  loss. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  the  Payne- Aldrich  tariff  bill  compels  you  to  sell 
your  product  at  a  loss  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  on  that  one  bracket. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  want  to  know  something  about  this  patent  ma- 
chinery that  has  taken  the  place  of  gatherers,  snappers,  and  blowers 
in  the  glass  business.  Can  you  tell  us  who  owns  that  machinery — 
what  corporation  owns  those  machines  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Of  course,  I  can  not  tell  you  that  by  knowledge  of 
my  own. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Tell  what  you  have  heard. 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  have  heard  it  is  a  window  glass  company  that  owns  it. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Just  one  corporation  that  owns  it? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Air.  KITCHIN.  And  glass  makers  must  use  it? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Must  use  what? 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Can  buy  only  from  this  one  corporation  these 
machines  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No;  you  are  mistaken.  We  have  10  factories  now 
being  changed  from  hand  to  machine  process,  and  they  are  using 
four  different  patents;  different  from  the  American. 


SCHEDULE  B.  811 

PABAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Do  you  not  believe  that  fully  one-half  of  the  window 
glass  that  is  made  in  this  country  is  made  by  this  patent  machinery 
that  is  owned  by  this  one  corporation? 

Mr.  HILTON.  About  one-half.  It  will  be  in  that  proportion  anyway 
in  the  future. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  since  that,  wages  have  actually  been  reduced 
to  the  laborers  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes.  The  competition  between  the  hand  and  machine 
factories  has  two  or  three  times  reduced  wages. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  In  spite  of  the  high  tariff,  ranging  from  38  to  over 
100  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  You  are  not  one  of  those  manufacturers  who  be- 
lieve this  tariff  is  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  laborer,  are  you  ?  It  is 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  industry  and  manufacturers,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  is  made  for  all  of  them. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Are  you  one  of  the  gentlemen  that  never  gives  an 
employee  higher  wages  until  he  strikes,  although  you  have  this  high 
tariff  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do  not  understand  your  question. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  I  say,  is  your  concern  one  of  the  companies  that 
never  increase  wages  of  employees  unless  they  strike  and  force  you  to 
doit? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  you  have  this  high  pro- 
hibitive tariff  made  in  the  interest  of  the  laboring  man  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  have  made  three  scales  with  the  workingmen  in 
the  last  three  years,  and  we  have  twice  given  them  increases.  Once 
it  was  a  decrease  because  the  market  condition  was  so  low  they  had 
to  come  down  to  the  cost  of  the  glass,  and  that  year  we  sold  the  glass 
at  cost. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  was  a  market  condition,  not  brought  about  by 
any  importations  of  foreign  glass. 

Mr.  HILTON.  The  importations  during  the  last  three  years  have 
not  been  a  serious  problem  for  us,  but  they  do  help  to  fix  the  price, 
because  we  have  to  get  rid  of  so  much  of  this  small  glass  that  comes 
in  in  spite  of  all  we  can  do.  It  is  so  large  a  proportion  of  our  pro- 
duction, and  we  have  to  sell  it  so  cheap,  that  it  does  affect  the  rest  of 
our  operation. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Does  your  association  regulate  your  price  here  by 
the  foreign  price;  that  is,  find  the  foreign  price  and  then  add  to  it 
the  tariff,  and  that  makes  the  American  price  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Xo.  I  never  knew  what  the  tariff  was  until  the  last 
two  or  three  months. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  you  do  not  know  anything  about  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  HILTOX.  No;  we  did  not  know  anything  about  it.  Prices 
are  fixed  by  supply  and  demand. 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  You  say  you  have  suffered  considerably  since  the 
Payne  Act  of  1909  went  into  effect  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  have  suffered  considerably  since  machines  came 
into  competition,  and  from  overproduction.  Overproduction  has 
been  the  cause  of  nearly  all  of  our  losses.  We  have  many  plants 
lying  idle. 


812  TAEIFF  HEABINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Has  the  price  of  window  glass  decreased  or  increased 
since  1909  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  has  been  up  and  down. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  It  is  higher  now  than  it  was  in  1909  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  In  a  part  of  1910  it  was  a  little  higher  than  it  is  now. 
In  1909  it  was  not  quite  so  high  as  in  1910,  but  higher  than  it  was  in 
1911,  and  not  as  high  as  it  was  prior  to  1907. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  1907  and  1908  were  pretty  bad  years  for  you,  too, 
were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes.  That  was  when  the  machines  came  in  and  we 
had  that-  competition. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  The  panic  of  1907  affected  you,  which  continued 
over  until  November,  1910? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  it  had  some  influence  in  lessening  the  demand. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  That  had  some  influence? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  it  lessened  the  demand  and  compelled  us  to 
carry  heavy  stocks. 

Air.  PAYNE.  Since  window  glass  has  been  manufactured  by  ma- 
chinery in  this  country  by  what  amount  have  the  wages  of  the 
gatherers,  blowers,  and  snappers  been  decreased  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  We  have  not  decreased  any  this  year;  but  some  years 
since  they  commenced  they  have  decreased  all  the  way  from  25 
to  40  per  cent,  I  would  say,  among  the  snappers  and  blowers  and 
gatherers. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Have  not  the  wages  of  the  blowers,  gatherers,  and 
snappers,  since  they  commenced  to  decrease,  caused  by  machinery, 
been  reduced  50  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No,  not  that  much,  unless  you  go  away  back  10  years 
or  so  to  make  a  comparison  of  wages. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  said  since  they  had  commenced  to  manufacture  the 
glass  by  machinery. 

Mr.  HILTON.  No. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  much  would  you  say  they  have  been  reduced? 

Mr.  HILTON.  From  25  to  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  JAMES.  From  35  to  40  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  From  25  to  40. 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  tariff  has  remained  the  same  all  the  time,  has 
it  not « 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  But  somebody  is  getting  the  benefit  of  that  much 
protection,  and  inevitably  it  is  not  the  wage  earner,  is  it? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Neither  the  wage  earners  nor  the  manufacturers  are 
getting  any  benefit  from  that.  There  is  no  use  made  of  it  whatever. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Then  we  could  take  25  or  30  per  cent  off? 

Mr.  HILTON.  There  are  some  sizes  it  could  be  reduced  on,  but  the 
main  thing — the  higher  brackets  are  probably  a  little  too  high  and  the 
small  glass  is  just  a  little  too  low.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  cost  in 
wages  between  Belgium  and  this  country  of  about  80  cents  a  box,  and 
we  want  that  covered  by  protection. 

Mr.  JAMES.  On  this  glass  that  is  manufactured  by  machinery, 
which  has  caused  a  reduction  in  wages  to  blowers  and  gatherers  to  the 
extent  of  35  to  40  per  cent,  do  you  think  that  the  tariff  might  be 
reduced  upon  that  character  of  glass  ? 


SCHEDULE  B.  813 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  could  be  reduced  on  the  larger  brackets,  the 
brackets  above  the  second  one. 

Mr.  JAMES.  How  much  would  you  say  it  could  be  reduced  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  have  not  made  any  close  calculation,  but  I  would 
suggest  you  make  it  2  cents  per  pound  clear  through. 

Mr.  JAMES.  You  heard  tne  testimony  of  a  gentleman  that  was 
before  the  committee  here  testifying  for  the  window-glass  people,  by 
the  name  of  Neenan  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  He  told  us  that  the  wages  of  laborers  had  not  been 
decreased  in  the  last  seven  or  eight  years.  He  was  mistaken  about 
that,  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do  not  understand  that  he  said  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  is  the  way  I  understood  him. 

Mr.  HILTON.  No,  I  think  not;  I  did  not  hear  him  say  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  He  told  us  that  the  wages  were  reduced,  I  think, 
about  12.5  per  cent  and  were  restored  after  the  passage  of  the  Payne 
bill. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Well,  they  were  reduced  and  restored.  I  know  the 
machine  competition  was  the  question  that  had  determined  that  with 
the  manufacturers. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Of  course  his  testimony  is  in  the  record  and  it  will 
speak  for  itself. 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  is  in  the  record,  but  I  think  you  will  find  he  did  not 
make  that  statement. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  it  not  true  that  those  who  manufacture  this  glass 
by  machinery,  who  own  this  machinery — it  is  a  patent,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  it  not  true  they  practically  dictate  and  control  the 
price  of  glass  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  When  it  was  so  cheap  a  year  or  two  ago,  the  year 
prior  to  this  one,  when  glass  went  down  so  low,  some  of  our  hand 
plants  in  their  financial  straits  and  necessities  sold  glass  below  their 
price,  and  they  came  down  and  met  it.  They  would  do  the  same 
thing  if  we  made  an  advance,  and  would  meet  that.  If  the  hand 
plants  made  another  cut,  they  would  make  a  sacrifice  and  meet  it. 
The  American  Glass  Co.  would  always  go  down  and  meet  the  cut. 
But  it  was  the  hand  plant  that  made  the  cuts  first.  They  were 
always  able  to  go  as  low  as  we  did. 

Mr.  JAMES.  It  is  true,  is  it  not,  that  those  who  control  the 
machines  are  the  masters  of  the  market  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  They  control  half  of  the  production.  They  are  one 
individual  and  of  course  they  have  more  control  than  the  hand 
plants  have  over  the  market  to-day.  In  fact,  we  have  none  what- 
ever. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  many  factories  are  embraced  in  the  Associa- 
tion of  Window  Glass  Manufacturers  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  That  was  submitted  in  a  list  filed  by  Mr.  J.  R.  John- 
son yesterday  in  a  statistical  statement,  so  that  you  will  find  it  all 
there. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  They  are  all  in  there? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes;  all  listed,  every  one. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  are  speaking  for  all  ? 


814  TAEIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGBAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  am  speaking  for  all  hand  slants,  not  the  machinery 
plants,  except  machine  plants  that  are  putting  in  other  patents  than 
the  American  this  year. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  there  not  some  suspicion  there  is  a  window- 
glass  trust? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  do  not  know  of  any. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  they  all  incorporated? 

Mr.  HILTON.  The  companies  are  all  incorporated  individually. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Have  they  not  been  under  suspicion  over  here  in 
the  departments? 

Mr.  HILTON.  They  were  two  years  ago,  when  40  per  cent  of  them 
organized.  They  had  been  cutting  prices,  and  cutting  each  other 
for  a  year  or  two.  The  business  was  demoralized,  and  practically  all 
gone  to  pieces,  and  so  40  per  cent  of  them  organized,  and  sold  their 
glass  all  through  one  agency. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  machine  factories  you  say  are  not  in  the 
National  Association? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  All  the  others   are? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  company  are  you  connected  with? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  am  connected  with  the  Allegany  Window  Glass 
Co.,  of  Port  Allegany,  Pa. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  is  your  relation  to  that  company? 

Mr.  HILTON.  What  company? 

Mr.  HARRISON.  The  company  with  which  you  are  connected. 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  am  secretary,  treasurer,  and  manager. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Do  the  companies  that  are  embraced  in  your  asso- 
ciation avoid  paying  dividends  by  paying  salaries  to  their  officers  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  No.  The  window-glass  industry  does  not  pay  any 
large  salaries. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  much  salary  do  you  get? 

Mr.  HILTON.  I  get  $2,000  a  year,  and  1  am  the  only  salaried  officer. 
I  am  manager,  secretary,  and  treasurer.  I  think  that  is  about  the 
average  they  get. 

Mr.  JAMES.  No  skilled  workmen  are  required  in  making  glass  by 
machinery  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Not  skilled.  There  is  some  skill  developed,  but  they 
are  not  an  organized  body,  and  they  do  not  call  themselves  skilled 
workmen.  It  is  cheap  labor.  That  is  the  reason  we  can  not  compete 
with  them. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  said  56  per  cent  of  your  factory  cost  was 
labor. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes:  it  is  more  than  that.  When  I  come  to  think  it 
over,  our  office  cost  is  not  over  2  per  cent,  and  58  per  cent  is  common 
labor  around  the  factory. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  And  20  per  cent  is  your  material? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  About  20  per  cent  overhead  charges? 

Air.  HILTON.  Yes.  About  20  percent  material  and  20  per  cent  fuel. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  is  the  way  you  figure  your  cost? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes,  sir.     The  overhead  charges  include  the  fuel. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Includes  fuel? 


SCHEDULE   B. 


815 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  So  that  in  round  numbers  60  per  cent  of  your 
cost  is  the  labor  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  have  spoken  of  the  disadvantage  you  were 
at  in  comparison  with  Belgium,  on  your  material  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  That  is  relatively  insignificant,  is  it  not,  as  com- 
pared with  the  disadvantage  as  to  labor? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  would  be  willing  would  you  not,  to  have 
glass  put  on  the  free  list,  if  you  could  reduce  your  wages  to  what  is 
paid  in  Belgium  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  would  be  willing  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  You  would  take  free  trade  and  pay  your  labor 
the  same  as  they  do  ? 

Mr.  HILTON.  Yes. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  So  your  protection  practically  all  goes  to  labor? 

Mr.  HILTON.  It  all  goes  to  labor. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all. 

The  witness  at  a  later  date  filed  the  following  communication  with 
the  committee: 

AIXEGANY  WINDOW  GLASS  Co., 

Port  Allegany,  Pa.,  January  15,  191S. 
THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Re  Schedule  B,  paragraph  99. 

The  National  Window  Glass  Manufacturers  Association  through  its  tariff  committee 
begs  to  submit  the  following  additional  data  to  that  given  before  your  committee  at 
the  hearing  of  January  9. 

In  further  reply  to  the  questions  of  Mr.  Dalzell  and  Mr.  James,  shown  on  pages  655 
and  657  of  Hearing  No.  4,  January  9,  as  to  valuation  of  window-glass  production  in 
the  United  States  in  1910  by  the  United  States  Treasurer  as  being  $38,055,297,  we  beg 
to  submit  the  following  evidence  to  sustain  the  estimate  of  the  manufacturers'  com- 
mittee as  to  the  value  of  window-glass  production  in  1912: 


Year. 

50-foot 
boxes. 

Value. 

Value 
per  box. 

1899'  

4,341,282 

$10,879,355 

J2.50 

19041  

4.852,315 

11,610,851 

2.39 

19091  

6.921,611 

11,742.959 

1.70 

1912s  

7,000.000 

15,  000,  000 

2.14 

1  Figures  taken  from  Thirteenth  United  States  Census,  Bulletin  on  Manufactures,  p.  64. 
*  Manufacturers'  tariff  committee's  estimate. 

We  also  beg  to  submit  a  copy  of  the  wage  scale  made  between  the  manufacturers  and 
skilled  workmen  for  the  present  blast,  or  working  year,  and  call  your  attention  specially 
to  the  scale  itself  on  first  page  and  to  paragraphs  2  and  S.  showing  that  the  manufacturers 
have  agreed  to  share  with  their  skilled  workmen  any  advances  in  prices  they  may 
secure. 

The  window-glass  factories  of  the  United  States  commenced  three  years  ago  manu- 
facturing a  heavy-weight  glass,  known  as  32-ounce,  being  double  the  weight  of  single 


816 


TABEFF   HEAEINGS. 
PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 


strength  and  25  per  cent  heavier  than  double  strength.     As  this  is  still  a  competitive 
industry,  we  protest  against  any  change  being  made  in  the  tariff  on  this  product. 

Signed  in  behalf  of  the  tariff  committee  of  the  National  Window  Glass  Manufacturers' 
Association. 

H.  R.  HILTON,  Chairman. 

BRIEF    OF    SEMON    BACHE    &    CO.,    RELATIVE    TO    COMMON 

WINDOW  GLASS. 

NEW  YOEK,  January  18,  1913. 
COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS. 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  request  your  consideration  of  the  propriety  of  a  substantial  reduc- 
tion in  the  duties  throughout  this  paragraph. 

The  present  domestic  production  of  window  glass  was  stated  by  Mr.  J.  R.  Johnston 
in  his  testimony  before  the  committee  on  January  8  last  as  about  7,500,000  boxes  per 
year.  The  boxes  referred  to  contain,  approximately,  50  square  feet  each  and  weigh, 
net,  about  55  pounds  to  the  box  in  single  thick  and  80  pounds  to  the  box  in  double 
thick.  The  7,500,000  boxes  annually  produced  is  the  equivalent  of  about  475,000,000 
pounds. 

The  importations  run  from  30,000,000  to  35,000,000  pounds  annually;  that  is  about 
*l\  per  cent  of  the  domestic  production. 

The  manufacturers  ascribe  this  relatively  small  importation,  which  still  existe,  as  due 
to  insufficient  protection  in  the  small  sizes.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  importa- 
tions consist  almost  entirely  of  special  varieties  of  window  glass,  imported  solely  on 
account  of  their  suitability  for  particular  requirements  and  not  on  account  oflow 
pnce.  In  fact,  the  vast  majority  of  the  importations  do  not  compete  with  the 
American  product  at  all. 

For  instance,  there  are  imported  annually  about  12,000,000  pounds  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  photographic  dry  plates,  lantern  slides,  etc.  At  least  10,000,000  pounds  consist 
of  high  quality  picture  glass.  These  two  items  alone  account  for  two-thirds  of  the 
importation,  and  in  addition  there  are  numerous  other  imported  specialties,  such  as 
clear  fluted  glass,  colored  window  glass,  muffled  glass  for  art  glass  workers,  etc. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Johnston's  own  figures  of  glass  imports,  reprinted  on  page  408  of  print 
No.  3,  Tariff  Hearings.  January  8,  1913.  show  conclusively  the  nature  of  the  importa- 
tion. The  average  price  per  box  for  the  period  from  1888  to  1912,  inclusive,  works 
out  as  follows: 

$1.96 
1.89 
1.66 
1.61 
2.11 
2.29 
1.96 
1.94 
1.95 
1.80 
1.80 
2.29 


1888  

$1.17 

1901  

1899 

1  14 

1902    .  . 

1890 

1  19 

1903 

1891 

1  50 

1904 

1892 

1.  39 

1905.  . 

1S93 

1.  36 

1906    

1S94 

1.20 

1907  ... 

1895 

1  26 

1908 

189G 

1.20 

1909  

1897 

1.27 

1910  

189S 

1.47 

1911  

1899 

1.62 

1912  

1900... 

1.82 

It  will  be  observed  that  up  to  1S9S  the  importations  did  actually  consist  of  glass  of 
comparatively  low  value.  Since  then,  however,  there  has  been  a  consistent  advance 
in  the  foreign  value  of  the  importations. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  American  manufacturers  of  window  glass  are  so 
enormously  overprotected  that  most  of  the  time  they  don't  take  advantage  of  their 
production,  even  in  tho  small  si/es,  but  sell  their  product  at  20  or  30  per  cent  less  than 
the  cost  of  Belgian  glass  laid  down  in  New  York.  The  larger  sizes,  those  exceeding 
16  by  24  inchi-s,  are  frequently  sold  for  much  less  than  the  cost  of  the  Belgian  product — 
that  is.  tho  foreicrn  cost — f.  o.  b.  Antwerp,  without  duty,  and  frequently  for  less  than 
the  duty  alone  on  the  imported  article.  In  fact,  under  competitive  conditions  the 
price  of  American  window  glass  never  gets  anywhere  near  the  importation  point  and 
the  public  doesn't  suffer  from  the  operation  of  the  tariff.  At  intervals,  however,  the 
domestic  manufacturers  get  together  in  a  trade  agreement  or  selling  agency  or  some- 
thing of  that  sort  and  the  public  pays  handsomely. 


SCHEDULE    B. 


817 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

In  our  brief  presented  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  1909,  we  pointed  out  that 
allowing  this  exceedingly  high  tariff  to  stand  simply  offered  a  premium  for  the  forma- 
tion of  a  combination  behind  it.  Prophecies  have  seldom  been  fulfilled  more  promptly. 

During  the  early  part  of  1909,  the  American  window  glass  manufacturers  had  been 
engaged  in  the  formation  of  a  combination,  but  as  the  project  attracted  some  attention 
during  the  tariff  discussion  of  that  year,  the  scheme  was  temporarily  dropped.  The 
ink  was  hardly  dry  on  the  Payne  bill,  however,  before  it  was  revived  and  by  the  end  of 
1909  a  selling  agency  known  as  the  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.  was  in  full  operation. 

This  organization  comprised  some  70  plants,  including  15  plants  which  were  leased 
for  the  purpose  of  shutting  them  down,  and  there  were  not  more  than  half  a  dozen  small 
factories  left  outside  when  the  combination  was  formed,  so  that  together  with  the  Amer- 
ican Window  Glass  Co.,  who  at  that  time  produced  all  the  glass  made  by  the  machine 
process,  amounting  to  about  half  the  entire  production,  they  controlled  the  market 
absolutely.  The  effect  on  prices  is  illustrated  in  the  attached  tables  Nos.  6  to  12, 
inclusive,  showing  the  fluctuations  in  selling  prices  during  the  past  four  years. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  some  cases  prices  were  more  than  doubled  and  that  the  advance 
averaged  all  round  considerably  over  50  per  cent.  The  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co. 
was  merely  a  selling  agency,  operating  principally  on  a  commission  basis,  and  most 
of  this  enormous  increase  in  price  went  direct  to  the  manufacturers,  whose  product 
was  sold  through  the  Imperial.  Roughly  speaking,  the  additional  profit  during  1910, 
including  the  profits  of  the  Imperial  Co.  itself,  were  in  the  neighborhood  of  about 
$6,000,000. 

The  Imperial  Co.  did  not  last 'long.  The  profits  of  the  business  were  so  great  that 
old  plants  that  had  been  shut  down  for  years  were  renovated  and  manufacturing 
recommenced,  so  that  by  the  fall  of  1910  there  were  14  independent  factories  in  opera- 
tion and  5  new  ones  in  process  of  construction,  and  as  glass  had  been  produced  at  an 
unprecedented  rate  during  the  first  half  of  1910  owing  to  the  stimulus  of  high  prices, 
the  overproduction,  together  with  outside  competition,  finally  broke  the  market  late 
in  the  fall  of  1910. 

During  its  brief  existence,  however,  the  combination  had,  as  stated  above,  cost  the 
country  something  like  $6,000,000,  which  was  a  pretty  good  price  to  pay  as  a  direct 
result  of  the  operation  of  the  Payne  tariff. 

From  the  late  fall  of  1910  until  the  summer  of  1912,  competitive  conditions  existed 
in  the  window-glass  business.  Last  summer,  however,  the  Imperial  project  was 
practically  revived  by  the  formation  of  the  Johnston  Brokerage  Co.,  Mr.  J.  R.  Johnston, 
the  president  of  this  concern,  who  appeared  before  your  committee  on  January  8, 
having  been  the  secretary  of  the  Imperial  Co.  The  Johnston  Brokerage  Co.  handles 
the  product  of  most  of  the  factories  that  were  formerly  affiliated  with  the  Imperial 
concern.  The  effect  of  this  last  combination  is  shown  in  Tables  Nos.  11  and  12 
attached.  For  a  graphic  demonstration  of  the  violence  of  the  fluctuations  in  price  due 
entirely  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  competitive  conditions,  and  impossible  except 
under  the  existing  tariff,  we  show  hereunder  comparative  prices  of  four  popular  sizes 
at  different  periods: 

Net  prices  per  box. 


A  single 
(16  by  20 
inches). 

g 

B  single 
(28  by  34 
inches). 

B  double 
(16  by  24 
inches). 

A  double 
(30  by  36 
inches). 

April,  1909,  open  market  

$1  35 

11  52 

$1  67 

$2  31 

January,  1910,  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.  formed. 

1  92 

2  23 

2  79 

3  78 

July,  1910,  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.  maximum  

1  92 

2  64 

3  24 

4.39 

January,  1911,  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.  dissolved  

1.69 

1  85 

2  17 

2  94 

October,  1911,  open  market  

1  21 

1  35 

1  49 

2  14 

September,  1912,  Johnston  Co  

1  80 

2  02 

2  17 

2  94 

January,  1913,  Progress  Johnston  Co  

1  95 

2  33 

2  71 

3  72 

Cost  of  Belgian  glass  in  same  sizes  f.  o.  b.  New  York  at  average 
price  

2  26 

3  31 

2  99 

5  37 

Duty  on  imported  glass  

97 

1  69 

1  50 

2  60 

Freight  l  on  imported  glass  

14 

14 

20 

20 

Glass  at  74-  per  cent  

1  15 

1  48 

1  ^ 

2  57 

1  And  insurance. 


78959°— VOL  1—13- 


818  TABEFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

It  will  be  observed  that  under  competitive  conditions  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible on  the  one  hand  to  import  ordinary  Belgian  window  glass  for  glazing  purposes, 
even  if  it  could  have  been  brought  in  free  of  duty,  as  the  foreign  cost  of  the  Belgian 
glass  was  in  many  cases  higher  than  that  of  the  domestic  factories  here,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  the  Belgian  glass  had  been  given  away,  it  still  could  not  have  been 
imported,  as  the  duty  was  higher  than  the  cost  of  the  American  glass. 

In  justice  to  the  American  manufacturers,  we  are  free  to  say  that  a  combination  of 
some  sort  appears  to  be  the  only  alternative  to  ruinous  cut-throat  competition,  and 
we  don't  think  any  consumer  of  glass  should  object  to  a  reasonable  combination  to 
steady  the  market,  but  the  combination  should  not  be  allowed  the  benefit  of  the 
present  excessive  protection.  The  public  should  also  be  protected  by  at  least  the 
possibility  of  foreign  competition. 

We  are  unable  to  figure  out  the  basis  for  the  comparative  labor  cost  given  by  Mr. 
Neenan  and  Mr.  Hilton.  In  fact,  we  don't  see  how  a  really  exact  comparison  could 
be  made.  The  American  window  glass  blowers'  wages  are  determined  by  the  sizes 
into  which  the  glass  he  blows  is  eventually  cut,  whereas  the  Belgian  blower  is  paid 
by  a  piece-rate  system.  The  same  statement  applies  to  gatherers,  flatteners,  cut- 
ters, etc. 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  regarding  this  labor  matter  that  up  to  10  years  ago  or  so,  there 
was  steady  immigration  of  window  glass  workers  from  Belgium,  a  large  proportion 
of  the  workmen  in  the  trade  to-day  being  of  Belgian  origin.  This  immigration  has 
practically  ceased,  which  is  sufficient  demonstration  that  conditions  in  the  trade 
here  are  no  longer  attractive  as  compared  with  conditions  in  Belgium. 

In  fact,  both  Mr.  Neenan's  and  Mr.  Hilton's  testimony  show  conclusively  that  the 
tariff  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  prosperity  of  the  American  window-glass 
worker,  as  under  the  Dingley  and  Payne  tariffs  wages  have  been  reduced  40  per  cent 
or  more  in  spite  of  the  enormous  protection. 

Mr.  Hilton  in  suggesting  a  flat  rate  of  2  cents  per  pound  (see  print  No.  4,  tariff  hear- 
ings, Jan.  9,  p.  662),  practically  admits  the  propriety  of  a  reduction  running  from  20 
to  50  per  cent  in  all  the  larger  sizes,  those  above  16  by  24.  He  insists,  however,  that 
he  suffers  from  Belgian  competition  in  the  small  sizes. 

We  think  that  a  glance  at  the  attached  tables  on  pages  6  and  10,  showing  that  the 
American  manufacturers  have  sold  this  small  glass  frequently  at  only  20  or  30  cents 
per  box  higher  than  the  duty  on  the  imported  article  will  disprove  this  conclusively. 
The  American  manufacturers  may  have  been  selling  these  small  sizes  too  cheap,  but 
the  tariff  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

SEMON,  BACHE  &  Co., 

F.  J.  GOERTNER,  Sales  Manager. 


[National  Glass  Budget,  Pittsburgh,  Saturday,  Apr.  30,  1910.] 

A  DEMURRER  IN  IMPERIAL  CASE — WILL  DELAY  TRIAL  AT  LEAST  SIX  MONTHS — POSSIBLY 
A  YEAR  OR  MORE — SUIT  NO  LONGER  A  MENACE  TO  SPRING  AND  SUMMER  MARKET — 
INDICTMENT  MAY  BE  QUASHED — PRICES  ADVANCED. 

As  a  result  of  an  agreement  arrived  at  between  counsel  for  the  Government  and  the 
Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.  early  this  week  the  Imperial's  attorneys  will  file  a  demur- 
rer in  the  case  on  the  9th  of  May.  The  court  will  then  set  a  day  for  argument.  If  the 
demurrer  is  sustained  it  will  then  be  optional  with  the  United  States  district  attorney 
whether  the  case  will  go  to  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  for  review  or  be  quashed.  If 
overruled  the  Imperial  has  no  alternative  but  to  go  to  trial,  in  which  event  the  case 
can  not  come  up  before  the  October  term  of  court,  and  it  may  possibly  be  carried  over 
to  the  May  term  in  1911.  In  the  event  of  the  case  going  to  trial  before  the  local  court 
and  an  adverse  decision  rendered,  the  Imperial  Co.  will  still  have  the  privilege  of 
appealing  it  to  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  for  review.  United  States  District  Attorney 
Jordan,  on  Wednesday  morning,  said: 

"This  is  the  first  case  of  this  character  to  come  before  the  local  United  States  court 
and  it  is  desired  on  the  part  of  the  court  to  ascertain  beforehand  whether  we  are  moving 
in  the  right  direction.  Argument  will  determine  whether  the  case  will  go  to  trial  or 
be  quashed." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  executive  officers  of  the  Imperial  Co.  are  to  be  given  an 
opportunity  to  state  their  case  before  the  court,  and,  in  view  of  the  voluminous  evi- 
dence that  they  will  be  able  to  submit  sustaining  their  position,  they  feel  confident 


SCHEDULE  B. 


819 


PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 

that  they  will  be  able  to  maintain  their  position,  through  demonstrating  to  the  court 
that  they  are  neither  criminals,  nor  criminally  inclined,  but  on  the  other  hand  have 
resorted  to  the  only  available  means  looking  to  the  safe-guarding  of  investments  and 
the  paving  of  the  way  for  living  wages  for  the  men  who  toil  in  front  of  window-glass 
furnace  fires.  In  any  event  this  action  removes  a  menace  from  the  business  for  many 
months  ahead,  putting  the  case  entirely  out  of  the  way  of  spring  and  summer  business. 

[National  Glass  Budget,  Pittsburgh,  Nov.  19, 1910.] 

THE  WINDOW-GLASS  SITUATION — GOVERNMENT  CASE  ENDED  BY  IMPOSITION  OF  FINES — 
IMPERIAL  NOW  IN  COURSE  OF  LIQUIDATION — OUTPUT  CURTAILED  OWING  TO  WORKERS* 
STRONG  STAND  IN  SUPPORT  OF  WAGE  AGREEMENT. 

The  Government  action  against  the  Imperial  Window  Glass  Co.,  which  was  listed 
for  trial  on  Monday  of  this  week,  is  at  end,  the  defendants  having  appeared  in  court 
on  Friday  afternoon  of  last  week  and  pleaded  "nolo  contendere"  before  Judge  James 
S.  Young  to  the  counts  that  had  been  entered  against  them  under  the  antitrust  laws. 
This  was  followed  by  the  imposition  of  a  fine  of  $2,500  against  the  company,  and 
fines  of  $500  each  against  its  15  directors,  in  both  cases  the  cost  having  been  assessed 
against  the  defendants. 

******* 

The  sudden  termination  of  this  proceeding,  Mr.  Wickersham  of  the  Department 
of  Justice  states,  was  due  to  overtures  made  by  representatives  of  the  defendant  com- 
pany the  day  prior  to  the  termination  of  the  court  action,  while  on  the  other  hand, 
representatives  of  the  Imperial  insist  that  their  action  was  due  to  the  fact  that  internal 
dissentions  and  outside  competition  had  nullified  the  usefulness  of  the  organization. 


NEW  YORK,  January  £5,  1913. 
COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  Further  to  our  communication  of  January  18,  we  beg  to  inform  the 
committee  that  although  the  statement  is  frequently  made  that  American  window 
glass  can  not  be  exported,  it  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  this  very  time  being  offered  in 
Canada  at  prices  considerably  below  those  ruling  in  the  American  market.  We  have 
recently  seen  offers  of  large  quantities  to  Canadian  buyers  at  discounts  of  90  and  40 
per  cent  and  90  and  50  per  cent  from  the  list,  whereas  the  discounts  for  the  United 
States  market  are  90  and  17^  per  cent  to  90  and  Tl\  per  cent,  plus  packing. 

Using  for  an  illustration  the  same  four  sizes  as  we  used  in  our  statement  of  January 
18,  the  comparative  prices  are  as  follows: 


Price  to 
United 
States 
buyer. 

Price  to 
Canadian 
buyer. 

United 
States 
duty  on 
Belgian 
glass. 

16  by  20,  A  single  

$1.95 

$1.33 

$0.97 

28  by  34,  B  single  

2.33 

1.73 

1.69 

16  by  24,  B  double  .".  

2.71 

1.55 

1.50 

30  by  36,  A  double  

3.72 

1.90 

2.60 

It  will  be  observed  that  double-thick  glass  is  being  offered  to  the  Canadian  buyer 
for  less  than  the  American  duty  on  the  imported  glass,  and  that  even  in  the  single-thick 
glass  the  selling  price  for  Canada  is  only  a  trifle  higher  than  the  American  duty. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

SEMON  BACHE  &  Co., 

F.  J.  GOERTNER,  Sales  Manager. 


820  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  99— WINDOW  GLASS. 
PRICES  OF  ORDINARY  WINDOW  GLASS. 

DANBTJRY,  CONN.,  January  10,  191S. 
Hon.  OSCAE  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  a  retail  dealer  in  ordinary  window  glass,  I  wish  to  place  some  facts 
of  the  business  before  your  committee  while  the  hearing  on  glass  schedule  is  going  on. 

The  average  run  of  price  on  glass  per  box  of  50  square  feet,  factory  shipment,  has 
been  from  $1.20  to  $1.40  per  box  for  sizes  in  first  bracket,  i.  e.,  of  150  united  inches  or 
less.  One  year  ago  price  was  suddenly  lowered  to  99J  cents  a  box  on  above  sizes. 
Upon  making  inquiry  learned  what  purported  to  be  the  following  facts:  That  the 
American  Window  Glass  Co.  had  perfected  a  machine  which  displaced  about  48  of 
every  50  glass  blowers  in  the  business;  that  they  were  cutting  prices  to  get  control  of 
'the  business  into  their  own  hands,  as  price  has  been  subsequently  advanced  again. 
It  is,  I  believe,  reasonably  safe  to  assume  that  they  carried  their  point. 

Now,  then,  how  much  tariff  do  manufacturers  need  that  can  voluntarily  sell  glass 
(and  good  glass,  too)  at  $1  per  box? 

Respectfully,  yours,  D.  F.  STEVENS. 

["Extract  from  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports.] 

PROSPERITY  IN  BELGIAN  GLASS  INDUSTRY. 

[From  Consul  General  Ethelbert  Watts,  Brussels.] 

Belgian  manufacturers  of  window  glass  are  enjoying  a  period  of  unusual  prosperity 
because  of  a  close  understanding  among  themselves  on  prices  for  the  various  export 
markets — high  where  conditions  permit  it,  low  where  there  is  competition  and  where 
it  is  a  matter  of  dumping  surplus  production.  Although  the  wages  of  blowers  have 
been  recently  slightly  advanced,  they  remain  reasonable.  It  seems  that  the  work- 
men are  moderate  in  their  demands  for  better  wages,  in  order  not  to  encourage  the 
introduction  into  Belgium  of  the  American  window  glass  blowing  machine. 

Belgium  plate-glass  manufacturers  are  very  prosperous,  paying  yearly  dividends  as 
high  as  30  per  cent.  Because  of  the  cheap  labor  the  plate-glass  industry  in  Belgium 
maintains  on  all  foreign  markets  its  power  as  price  regulator.  The  advantage  of  a 
lo\v  cost  of  production  (11  cents,  United  States  currency,  per  square  foot  of  polished 
plate  glass)  is  assisted  by  the  successful  operation  of  the  International  Syndicate  of 
Plate  Glass  Manufacturers,  which  regulates  selling  prices  according  to  conditions 
existing  in  each  foreign  market.  These  arbitrary  selling  prices  are  consequently  of 
great  variety.  For  example,  the  same  glass  and  the  same  sizes,  quality  for  silvering, 
are  sold  (off  the  gross  prices  of  the  same  list)  at  20  per  cent  discount  for  England  and 
30  per  cent  discount  for  the  United  States,  and  quality  for  window  at  30  per  cent 
and  2i  per  cent  for  England,  against  a  discount  of  45  per  cent  and  more  for  the  United 
States". 

The  reason  for  this  discrimination  is  said  to  be  the  fact  that  the  American  plate- 
glass  manufacturers  are  not  associated  with  the  European  syndicate,  and  consequently 
the  syndicate  establishes  a  low  range  of  prices  for  the  American  market  on  the  kinds 
and  sizes  of  glass  which,  through  overproduction,  must  be  disposed  of  by  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  regardless  of  cost. 

PARAGRAPH   100. 

Cylinder  and  crown  glass,  polished,  not  exceeding  three  hundred  and 
eighty-four  square  incites,  four  cents  per  square  foot;  above  that,  and  not 
exceding  seven  hundred  and  twenty  square  inches,  six  cents  per  square  foot; 
above  that,  and  not  exceeding  one  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty  square 
inches,  twelve  cents  per  square  foot;  above  that,  fifteen  cents  per  square  foot. 


SCHEDULE  B.  821 

PARAGRAPHS  101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

PARAGRAPH   101. 

Fluted,  rolled,  ribbed,  or  rough  plate  glass,  or  the  same,  containing  a  wire 
netting  within  itself,  not  including  crown,  cylinder,  or  common  window 
glass,  not  exceeding  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  square  inches,  three- 
fourths  of  one  cent  per  square  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  seven 
hundred  and  twenty  square  inches,  one  and  one-fourth  cents  per  square  foot; 
all  above  that,  one  and  three-fourths  cents  per  square  foot;  and  all  fluted, 
rolled,  ribbed,  or  rough  plate  glass,  weighing  over  one  hundred  pounds  per 
one  hundred  square  feet,  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  on  the  excess  at  the 
same  rates  herein  imposed:  Provided,  That  all  of  the  above  plate  glass,  when 
ground,  smoothed,  or  otherwise  obscured,  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  rate 
of  duty  as  polished  plate  glass  unsilvered. 

PARAGRAPH   102. 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  finished  or  unfinished  and  unsilvered,  not 
exceeding  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  square  inches,  ten  cents  per  square 
foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  seven  hundred  and  twenty  square  inches, 
twelve  and  one-half  cents  per  square  foot ;  all  above  that,  twenty-two  and  one- 
half  cents  per  square  foot. 

PLATE  GLASS. 

• 

STATEMENT  OF  JOSEPH  S.  AUEKBACH,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

PARAGRAPH  102. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
before  stating  my  position  in  detail  as  to  the  paragraph  now  under 
consideration,  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  in  making  cer- 
tain suggestions  applicable  to  it  and  to  the  other  interests  for  which 
I  shall  appear  in  these  hearings,  and  applicable  in  a  measure  to 
industry  generally  to  be  affected  by  your  proposed  revision.  By 
such  a  plan,  I  am  confident,  I  shall  be  enabled  to  avoid  repetition 
and  so  economize  your  time. 

My  view  is  that  your  decision  to  hold  these  hearings  indicates  that 
you  invite  such  suggestions  because  your  minds  are  not  fully  made 
up  as  to  the  bills  you  are  to  report;  that  they  are  not  necessarily  to 
be  in  substance  mere  duplicates  of  the  tariff  bills  of  last  year,  but  that 
with  open  minds  you  are  seeking  new  and  additional  information  to 
enable  you  to  give  the  most  satisfactory  answer  to  the  many  per- 
plexing questions  before  you. 

On  behalf  of  these  several  interests  I  represent,  I  wish  at  the  outset 
to  tender  you  the  loyal  cooperation  of  their  management  and  counsel 
in  the  task  before  you,  which  is  to  have  such  a  momentous  effect  upon 
the  public  welfare.  For  with  all  our  selfish  interests,  which  we  do 
not  minimize,  we  have  a  correspondingly  great  stake  in  the  prosperity 
of  industry  that  is  halting  upon  your  action;  and  if  we  were  unduly 
favored  at  the  expense  of  other  industries,  it  would  not  in  the  end  be 
to  our  permanent  advantage.  When  general  prosperity  is  lacking, 

I  a  particular  industry  is  almost  certain  to  be  injuriously  affected,  for 
commercial  depression  is  hopelessly  contagious  and  we  in  the  end 
shall  not  be  immune.  Then,  too,  if  we  should  succeed  in  securing 
for  ourselves  inequalities,  this  will  doubtless  be  true  as  to  others,  and 
again  we  shall  have  a  tariff  with  which  the  public  will  not  be  content, 
and  further  agitation  will  ensue;  and  the  manufacturer  knows  full 
well  that  the  course  of  treatment  best  for  him  in  this  case  is  rest  from 
such  disturbing  agitation. 


822  TABIFF   HEAEINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

Lest  my  assuming  to  speak  to  you  on  the  subject  be  deemed 
presumptuous,  let  what  has  been  said  so  often  be  repeated  now — that 
the  best  tariff  legislation  can  not  be  said  to  be  truly  scientific,  but 
merely  the  adoption  of  some  practical  plan  to  raise  revenue  for 
Government  needs  without  injustice,  inequality,  or  discrimination. 
And  anyone  possessing  only  general  information  and  intelligence  as 
to  governmental  affairs  may,  perhaps,  make  some  helpful  contribution 
to  your  deliberations;  though  I  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  my 
contribution  is  not  the  discovery  of  something  novel  by  way  of  a 
cure-all  nostrum. 

Observation  teaches  that  no  arbitrary  rule  will  serve  your  purpose 
of  raising  income.  If  there  is  a  10  per  cent  duty  on  a  given  article, 
its  reduction  to  5  per  cent  or  its  increase  to  20  per  cent  would  not 
necessarily  mean  in  the  one  case,  one-half,  or  in  the  other  twice  the 
income.  The  reduced  tax  might  produce  jess  or  more  revenue  than 
the  original  tax;  and  the  increased  tax  might  have  a  similar  result. 
You  feel  your  way  rather  than  see  your  way  to  a  result;  only  you 
have  a  great  experience  as  your  guide,  and  what  might  be  a  mere 
guess  on  the  part  of  others  becomes  a  matter  of  reasonable  proba- 
bility when,  with  your  familiarity  concerning  the  subject,  you 
estimate  the  outcome  of  your  revision. 

It  is  true  that  you  are  to  have  before  you  the  duty  of  living  up  to 
the  pledges  of  the  Democratic  Party  to  the  people;  but  as  a  Democrat 
by  principle  and  practice,  I  have  no  fear  of  them  rightly  interpreted. 
We  are  not,  however,  to  confuse  ourselves  as  to  what  were  those 
pledges  even  though  prepared  to  accept  them  at  their  face  value. 
While  there  was  a  demand  in  the  Democratic  platform  for  the  imme- 
diate revision  of  tariff  duties,  it  was  accompanied  by  the  declaration 
that — 

We  recognize  that  our  system  of  tariff  taxation  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
business  of  the  country;  and  we  favor  the  ultimate  attainment  of  the  principles  we 
advocate  by  legislation  that  will  not  injure  or  destroy  legitimate  industry. 

President  Elect  Wilson,  throughout  the  campaign,  voiced  this  view; 
and  again  and  again  he  gave  his  assurance  to  the  American  people 
that  in  the  reform  of  the  tariff  no  legitimate  business  industry  need 
fear  unjust  treatment. 

The  tariff,  being  a  necessary  governmental  agency  to  produce 
reasonable  revenue  for  its  just  needs,  the  problem  is  to  produce  that 
revenue  in  such  a  way  that  neither  the  wage  earner  nor  the  producer 
nor  the  consumer  will  be  unnecessarily  injuriously  affected,  while  if 
possible  the  interests  of  all  these  classes  may  be  promoted.  The  way 
of  the  tariff1  should  be  a  toll  road  and  not  a  highway  where  highway- 
men may  ply  their  trade. 

Xaturally  you  must  approach  }~our  task  with  solicitude  as  to  the 
result;  for  you  have  in  your  keeping  not  only  the  future  of  political 
parties  but  the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation.  Some  injury  to  one  or 
more  of  these  classes  will  probably  result  from  whatever  you  do, 
but  unquestionably  you  will  have  cause  to  congratulate  yourselves  if 
the  specific  injury  be  reduced  to  a  minimum  and  the  general  benefit 
made  a  maximum.  You  have  in  all  this  proposed  legislation  the 
administration  of  a  great  trust,  and  you  will  very  inadequately  dis- 
charge your  duty  unless  you  know  the  rights  as  well  as  the  needs  of 


SCHEDULE  B.  823 

PARAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

your  cestuis  que  trustent.  In  no  other  way  can  your  stewardship  be 
successful,  however  much  you  may  receive  a  temporary  popular 
applause,  which,  though  not  to  be  wholly  disregarded,  you  understand 
full  well  is  not  always  the  fixed  index  of  approval,  but  often  the 
weather  vane,  and  you  must,  if  necessary,  be  content  patiently  and 
courageously  to  await  the  final  verdict  made  up  when  wnat  you  have 
accomplished  has  been  weighed  in  the  balance  and  not  found  wanting. 

What  then,  rightly  interpreted,  was  that  tariff  reform  pledge,  made 
by  the  Democratic  Party  to  the  American  people  ?  Whatever  it  was, 
it  was  clearly  not  some  things,  and  when  these  are  eliminated  from 
consideration  we  can  the  better  see  what  that  pledge  involved. 

It  was  not  free  trade  or  any  approach  to  it,  and  if  it  had  been  so 
understood  the  Democratic  Party  would  have  gone  down  to  certain 
defeat.  It  was  not  discrimination  against  the  manufacturer  or  the 
producer  who  makes  prosperity  possible,  or  again  the  Democratic 
Party  would  have  gone  down  to  certain  defeat.  Nor  was  that  pledge 
an  undertaking  to  raise  less  money  for  the  reasonable  needs  of  govern- 
ment, for  any  such  proposal,  witn  the  increasing  necessity  for  legiti- 
mate and  enlarged  national  expenditures,  would  have  been  unintelli- 
gent or  insincere.  Nor  was  it,  as  some  insist,  an  arbitrary  scheme  of 
taxation  to  get  the  largest  return  possible  from  tariff  duties  without 
regard  to  individual  or  collective  hardship.  The  pledge  was  none  of 
these  things;  but,  stating  it  colloquially,  it  was  that  the  Democratic 
Party  would  so  readjust  the  tariff  that,  in  producing  the  same  or  even 
more  revenue,  existing  inequalities  would  as  far  as  possible  be  done 
away  with  and  the  burdens  of  the  high  cost  of  living  to  the  general 
consumer  be  lightened. 

In  all  this,  however,  the  solemn  promise  was  that  there  would  be 
taken  into  account  and  allowed  for  the  difference  in  cost  of  produc- 
tion here  and  abroad.  The  chairman  of  this  committee  again  and 
again  has  expressed  this  view  forcibly,  eloquently,  and  persuasively, 
too,  as  the  result  of  the  last  election  makes  abundantly  clear. 

Accepting  the  view,  therefore,  that  you  all  are  at  work,  either  as 
leaders  or  in  the  ranks,  to  reduce  the  high  cost  of  living  generally,  how 
are  you  going  to  go  about  it — always  remembering  that  this  so-called 
high  cost  of  living  is  often  a  misnomer  for  the  cost  of  high  living.  Let 
us  not  overlook  that  fact. 

Clearly,  one  of  the  ways  is  first  and  foremost  the  straight  and  direct 
way — to  reduce  the  cost  of  things  having  directly  and  immediately 
to  olo  with  living — the  things  we  eat,  and  then  the  things  we  wear,  and 
then  the  things  we  use,  without,  however,  producing  a  result  approach- 
ing general  industrial  disturbance.  We  have  all  heard  from  the 
President  elect  about  that  gibbet  of  shame,  high  as  Haman's,  upon 
which  he  proposes  to  hang  the  panic-breeder;  and  of  course  none  of 
you  long  for  the  gibbet  or  even  the  public  stocks.  You  wish,  on  the 
contrary,  to  give  an  account  of  your  stewardship  that  will  be  reflected 
in  a  defensible  prosperity— not  to  the  few  and  favored  but  to  the 
many;  and,  as  the  chairman  of  this  committee  once  said  on  a  notable 
occasion,  to  avoid  a  result  so  often  characteristic  of  our  legislation, 
both  State  and  National,  with  its  artificial  ups  and  downs,  which  are 
no  better  for  the  body  politic  than  was,  of  old,  the  prevailing  disease 
of  chills  and  fever  good  for  the  human  body.  The  normal  condition 


824  TAKEFP  HEABINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

is  as  essential  for  the  manufacturer  in  his  business  as  it  is  for  the 
individual  in  his  life. 

In  connection  "with  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  the  things  we  eat 
and  wear,  and  the  things  we  use  in  our  home  life  or  in  our  ousiness, 
this  tariff  must  produce  a  revenue  which  must  at  least  be  as  large  as 
it  is  now;  for  the  crying  need  of  important  undertakings — such  as 
Federal  courthouses,  the  dredging  of  our  great  waterways  and  har- 
bors to  prepare  for  the  new  era  of  commercial  activitv  to  result  from 
the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal,  modern  post-office  buildings  to 
handle  the  mails,  and  the  parcel  post  departure  (I  have  not  time  even 
to  call  the  roll  of  all  the  needs) — makes  a  greater  rather  than  a  smaller 
revenue  almost  imperative  unless  we  are  prepared  to  suffer  in  national 
pride  and  national  advancement. 

Under  all  these  conditions  the  duty  of  the  Democratic  Party  is  clear 
enough.  Having  pledged  itself  to  a  revision  of  the  tariff  which  shall 
be  designed  for  revenue  only,  and  having  asserted,  till  it  has  become 
an  inseparable  part  of  that  pledge,  that,  in  readjusting  the  tariff  the 
difference  in  cost  between  production  here  and  abroad  is  to  be  taken 
into  account  and  equalized,  the  primary  consideration  is,  how  is  this 
difference  in  cost  to  be  arrived  at. 

Many  rush  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  to  be  confined  to  the  mere 
difference  in  the  wages  of  the  laborer  here  and  abroad.  But  clearly 
this  is  altogether  too  limited  and  narrow  a  view  of  the  subject.  For 
has  not  the  cost  of  the  installation  of  the  manufacturing  plant  here 
and  abroad  of  necessity  much  to  do  with  the  relative  prices  of  pro- 
duction ?  If  the  plant  here  is  built  by  the  American  workman— who 
demands  and  commands  a  higher  wage  than  the  foreign  workman;  if 
the  price  of  material  used  here  in  construction  is  higher  and  therefore 
the  expenditure  for  the  plant  more  than  for  a  plant  of  similar  capacity 
abroad;  if  maintenance  and  depreciation  are  higher— these  elements, 
too,  are  to  be  given  due  weight  in  ascertaining  the  cost  of  production. 
Yet  these  are  not  all,  for  there  is  the  productivity  of  the  workmen 
employed  in  the  industry;  and  if  a  workman  with  a  given  wage  abroad 
produces  more  than  the  workman  here — proper  weight  being  given 
to  the  question  of  the  respective  quality  of  the  foreign  and  domestic 
product — that  element,  too,  is  not  to  be  ignored.  If  the  reply  be 
that  your  time  is  too  limited  to  pursue  the  subject  into  such  rami- 
fications and  details,  then  it  may  well  be  said  that  you  may  be  doing 
a  great  injury  as  well  as  taking  a  leap  in  the  dark;  and  I,  for  one,  am 
not  prepared  to  believe  that  you  are  disposed  to  commit  the  wrong  of 
the  injury  or  take  the  risk  01  the  leap. 

You  are  not  to  be  judges  and  yet  insist  that  you  have  not  time 
to  hear  testimony  and  independently  examine  and  weigh  facts. 
That  would  be  a  course  not  to  be  tolerated  in  a  free  country,  and 
tyranny  has  never  assumed  a  more  forbidding  form  than  when 
guilty  of  like  practices.  It  would  indeed  be  execution  before  judg- 
ment and  you  do  not  need  to  be  reminded  by  me  that  execution 
before  judgment  is  a  poor  form  of  justice. 

You  may  do  an  injury  after  all  painstaking  effort  and  research; 
but  then  you  will  not  run  the  risk  of  having  the  accusation  success- 
fully brought  against  you  that  this  result  was  traceable  directly  to 
neglect  or  indifference. 


SCHEDULE  B.  825 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

Then,  too,  what  an  ideal  prospect  opens  up  before  you.  You  have 
no  precedents  to  control  you,  as  the  judges  of  our  courts  so  often 
have,  compelling  them  at  times,  in  obedience  to  those  precedents, 
to  bring  about  individual  hardship.  There  is  no  rule  of  stare  decisis 
to  hamper  you,  and  being  thus  free  to  decide  each  case  on  its  particu- 
lar merits,  you  are  enabled  to  go  a  long  way  in  the  effort  to  avoid 
injustice. 

Perhaps,  however,  it  may  be  error  to  conclude  that  in  every  case 
you  must  necessarily  delve  into  all  these  indefinable  and  rather 
intricate  methods  of  determining  cost;  and  it  may  be  that — at  least 
as  to  more  than  one  of  the  industries  which  I  represent,  and  I  think 
this  is  true  of  many  other  interests  to  be  before  you — there  is  a  short 
cut  to  results,  not  necessarily  controlling,  but  influential  and  helpful 
for  your  deliberations. 

However  difficult  of  ascertainment  this  matter  of  cost  may  often 
be — and  the  person  is  hopelessly  inexperienced  who  asserts  the 
contrary — one  way  of  approaching  it  is  to  inquire,  what  in  the  par- 
ticular case  have  been  the  results  of  manufacture  and  trade  under 
the  existing  tariff  ?  Is  the  capital  stock  artificial  or  does  it  represent 
actual  investment?  Is  the  management  efficient  and  economical, 
or  the  reverse  ?  And  I  wish  to  say  with  all  the  emphasis  which  can 
be  put  into  language  that  the  earnings  of  an  industry  having  this 
efficient  management  and  this  low  capital  stock  contrasted  with 
the  result  of  similar  manufacture  abroad  are  factors  you  can  not  fail 
to  take  into  your  calculations  as  a  labor-saving  device  and  a  fairly 
safe  guide  in  helping  you  to  arrive  at  cost. 

You  are  bound,  too,  to  contrast  the  industrial  organization  thus 
administered  and  capitalized,  and  yet  paying  meagre  returns  upon 
the  capital  invested,  with  the  other  home  organization  having  excess- 
ive capital  and  ineffectively  administered,  and  also  with  the  agri- 
cultural industry  so  conducted  as  to  reflect  indifference  to  the  gospel 
of  soil  efficiency  and  productivity  preached  by  every  national  agri- 
cultural experimental  station.  If  an  industry  is  infant  only  in 
efficiency  but  adult  in  its  date  of  registration,  or  if  the  farmer  has 
no  anxiety  to  make  two  blades  of  grass  grow  where  one  grows  now, 
you  certainly  can  not  justly  ignore  these  facts.  While  adjusting 
the  tariff  primarily  so  as  to  produce  income,  as  an  immediate  accom- 
paniment of  that  idea,  you  will  enable  the  slothful  manufacturer 
and  farmer  to  enjoy  prosperity  only  if  they  indicate  a  willingness 
to  earn  and  enjoy  it  by  industry  and  intelligence  and  the  employ- 
ment of  the  most  modern-day  methods  hi  their  labors.  Any  other 
course  would  be  intolerable. 

In  no  safe  way  can  the  tariff  be  regarded  as  absolute  rather  than 
relative;  and  if  you  say,  well,  each  case  in  its  turn  must  be  taken 
up,  my  comment  is  yes,  provided  always  each  case,  though  con- 
sidered by  itself,  be  considered  also  as  part  of  the  whole  problem. 

Permit  me  to  give  you  an  illustration  not  without  application  to 
this  subject.  In  railroad  reorganizations  the  judicial  decree  often 
requires  that  you  ascertain  certain  auction  block  values  by  a  dual 
method.  First,  each  separate  piece  of  property  is  offered  for  sale 
under  the  so-called  unit  bid,  and  then  tne  property  is  put  up  as  a 
whole.  Whichever  method  produces  the  highest  amount — whether 


826  TARIFF  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

the  single  bid  or  the  aggregate  of  the  unit  bids — determines  who  is  the 
successful  purchaser.  Applying  this  principle  to  the  involved  sub- 
ject before  you,  you  are  to  consider  each  in  considering  the  whole, 
even  though  you  legislate  by  schedules  you  are  not  prevented  from 
taking  into  account  the  elements  which  would  be  controlling  in  one 
general  bill;  and  as  a  matter  of  good  sense  and  fair  play,  and  in  line 
with  what  our  ex-President  has  termed  the  square  deal,  no  schedule 
should  be  finally  determined  upon  except  it  be  thus  regarded  as  part 
of  the  whole. 

Let  me  see  if  I  can  make  another  point  clear  to  you  as  it  is  to  me, 
concerning  allowance  for  this  difference  between  foreign  and  domestic 
cost,  for  it  is  of  critical  and  far-reaching  importance. 

The  counterpart  abroad  of  more  than  one  industry  here,  as  is  true 
of  this  industry,  is  controlled  in  manufacture,  output,  management 
and  distribution  by  a  dictatorial  combination  or  trust  not  only  toler- 
ated but  favored  and  legalized  by  the  foreign  government.  Its 
unlawful  existence  here  would  be  enjoined  and  its  promoters  indicted 
and  convicted;  and  under  certain  circumstances,  importations  of 
the  output  of  such  a  combination  might  be  against  the  letter  as  well 
as  the  spirit  of  our  antitrust  acts.  Surely  you  are  not  solicitous 
about  contributing  to  its  profits  or  advantage,  though  for  the  moment 
I  am  not  directing  your  attention  to  this  aspect  of  the  case,  but  to 
the  effect  of  such  a  combination  upon  the  cost  of  production.  Under 
this  absolute  dictation  as  to  price  and  output  only  a  given  number  of 
machines  are  permitted  to  operate,  the  others  are  sealed  up  and  can 
be  put  into  operation  only  by  the  sanction  of  the  trust.  The  fac- 
tories are  not  run  to  their  full  capacity.  If  under  such  regulations  you 
superficially  figure  the  cost  as  it  appears  to  be  under  this  artificial 
restraint,  you  do  not  really  arrive  at  it.  Your  calculations  must 
take  into  account  what  would  be  the  lower  and  the  real  cost  if  the 
factories  were  permitted  to  run  naturally  and  freely  and  not  held  in 
the  strangle  hold  of  this  trust,  and  as  they  would  be  run  if  you  open 
the  floodgates  of  a  ruinous  cutthroat,  and  unlawful  competition  upon 
home  manufacture. 

An  estimated  foreign  cost  under  such  conditions  is  not  the  cost 
of  manufacture  but  a  manufactured  cost;  and  the  often  perfunctory 
consular  report  ought  not  to  be  either  the  law  or  the  gospel  of  your 
tariff  revision. 

In  all  this  there  is  no  suggestion  that  you  are  to  protect  the  profits 
of  an  industry — industrial  or  agricultural.  The  time  has  gone  by  for 
controversy  on  this  subject,  since  once  and  for  all  this  contention  has 
been  rejected  not  only  by  the  Democratic  Party  but  by  the  American 
people.  Yet  we  are  not  to  deceive  ourselves  as  to  what  is  involved  in 
this  rejection.  It  does  not  mean  that  you  are  to  be  responsible  for  a 
course  of  conduct  which  will,  without  warrant,  injuriously  affect  those 
profits,  if  they  be  legitimate.  To  state  the  case  in  its  offensive 
aspects,  suppose  there  are  two  industries  producing  profits  even  arti- 
ficially through  the  protection  of  the  tariff;  it  would  not  be  according 
to  the  spirit  or  even  the  letter  of  democratic  doctrine  to  discriminate 
against  one  and  hi  favor  of  the  other.  Each  industry  is  to  be  made 
to  bear  its  burden  of  new  legislation.  Suppose  you  are  legislating  as 
3rou  soon  will  bo  for  a  free  list — or,  more  accurately,  a  freer  list — of  food 
stuffs.  Are  you  not — always  having  to  reckon,  of  course,  with  the 


SCHEDULE  B.  827 

PABAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

problem  of  raising  revenue — bound  to  have  some  idea  of  equalizing 
of  the  new  burdens  upon  the  producer,  as  well  as  the  new  benefits  to 
the  consumer?  You  are  not  by  your  revision  even  to  expose  one 
such  article  to  a  ruinous  competition  from  abroad,  and  let  the  other 
by  reason  of  what  you  have  done  or  failed  to  do,  enjoy  a  full  measure 
01  protection. 

Such  a  course  is  not  protecting  profits  but  rather  avoiding  injustice, 
and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  there  are  instances  where,  though 
the  tariff  be  in  a  sense  prohibitory,  it  ought  riot  to  be  disturbed,  pro- 
vided you  can  secure  the  necessary  revenue  elsewhere.  Let  us  for  a 
moment  see  whether  this  is  not  the  correct  conclusion.  The  Demo- 
cratic platform  declares  that  "Articles  entering  into  competition  with 
trust-controlled  products  and  articles  of  American  manufacture  which 
are  sold  abroad  more  cheaply  than  at  home  should  be  put  upon  the 
free  list."  Do  you  intend  to  disregard  this  principle,  which  you  may 
consider  good  economic,  as  well  as  good  political  doctrine,  when 
applied  to  the  foreign  trust-made  product  ?  Clearly  not,  if  you  are 
mindful  of  home  industry  and  our  national  dignity;  and  the  correct 
application  of  that  principle,  as  its  logical  corollary,  may  in  some 
cases  result"  in  a  practical  exclusion  of  such  foreign  product  from 
competition  with  our  own  manufacture. 

We  have  been  legislating  in  this  country,  civilly  and  criminally, 
against  trusts  and  organizations  opposed  to  the  public  welfare.  Is 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  so  much  in  need  of  money  that 
it  is,  in  ah1  cases,  anxious  to  collect  at  the  customhouse  revenue  from 
the  importation  into  this  country  of  products  which  could  not  lawfully 
be  made  here  ?  Is  there  not  some  censorship  to  be  exercised  over  the 
articles  of  such  manufacture,  and  might  not  some  one  say  without 
exaggeration  that  there  are  instances  in  which  such  duties  would  be 
in  the  nature  of  indefensible  receipts  ? 

We  have  rigorous  laws  as  to  the  offering  for  sale  of  unwholesome 
food  products,  and  would  not  long  tolerate  their  importation  into  this 
country.  Yet  looking  at  the  tariff  as  a  relative  question — having  to 
do  with  our  national  dignity  and  national  policy  and  national  revenue 
as  well  as  with  the  general  prosperity  of  labor  and  capital — there  is, 
under  given  conditions,  no  more  justification  for  the  importation  of 
articles  manufactured  by  the  foreign  trusts  than  there  would  be  for 
permitting  the  importation  of  such  unwholesome  food  products.  For 
one  may  not  be  more  injurious  to  the  physical  body  than  is  the  other 
to  the  body  politic. 

If  you  are  to  legislate  for  free  bread  and  free  beef  and  leave  other 
branches  of  agricultural  products  unaffected  by  your  revision,  how 
can  that  course  be  justified  unless  you  are  driven  to  it  by  the  necessity 
of  providing  revenue;  and  assuming  that  revenue  to  be  as  satisfac- 
torily realizable  by  a  reduction  of  duties  generally  as  to  all  food  prod- 
ucts, is  there  any  question  as  to  your  proper  course  ?  For  with  equal 
revenue  provided  in  the  two  cases,  you  are  benefiting  the  general 
public,  while  at  the  same  time  you  are  not  discriminating  against  the 
particular  producer.  What  is  true  of  agricultural  products  is  true 
also  of  manufacturing  products. 

From  a  narrow,  selfish,  superficial  point  of  view  it  might  seem  to  be 
to  the  immediate  benefit  of  the  manufacturer  that  as  many  agricuL 


828  TABIFP  HEABINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

tural  products  as  possible,  irrespective  of  the  comparative  equity  of 
such  a  program,  be  put  upon  the  free  list,  so  that  the  necessity  of 
providing  for  this  abandoned  revenue  enure  to  the  greater  protection 
and  advantage  of  the  manufacturer.  But  again  such  a  procedure, 
as  I  have  said  in  another  aspect  of  the  case,  would  ignore  the  interest 
of  the  manufacturer  in  a  common  prosperity.  And  the  manufacturers 
I  represent  are  unalterably  opposed  to  and  protest  against  such  an 
injustice,  and  urge  that  a  similar  equitable  principle  of  justice  be 
applied  to  them  as  to  the  farmers. 

Nor  are  all  these  suggestions  contrary  either  to  the  lately  announced 
platform  of  the  Democratic  Party  or  to  its  old  articles  of  faith  reaching 
back  to  the  founder  of  that  party,  Jefferson  himself ;  for  no  one  better 
than  he  understood  the  complexity  of  the  tariff  or  the  labyrinth  from 
which  we  are  to  find  our  way  out. 

Moreover,  he  looked  at  the  tariff  question  as  we  must  all  look  at  it, 
unless  we  put  a  premium  upon  error,  as  a  relative  and  not  an  absolute 
question.  He  held  no  brief,  as  you  must  hold  no  brief,  either  for  or 
against  the  manufacturing  industries  of  this  country;  but  a  brief 
for  the  national  welfare.  He  saw  the  problem,  not  hi  a  valley  with 
horizon  shut  in,  but,  as  you  must  desire  to  see  it,  from  high  peaks 
where  broad  and  extended  vision  was  possible;  and  he  took  into 
consideration  some  things  which  you  may  well  take  into  consideration, 
additional  to  those  I  have  just  endeavored  to  urge  upon  your  attention. 

He  was  not  in  accord  with  Hamilton  as  to  the  protection  of  our 
manufacturing  industries,  whether  infant  or  adult;  but  he  did  have 
this  one  fundamental  controlling  thought,  showing  how  complete 
and  broad  his  view  was— that  in  such  legislation  as  you  are  under- 
taking there  are  involved  not  alone  individual  cases  but  national 
and  even  international  considerations  as  well.  And  he  said  these 
words,  which  you  can  with  much  benefit  ponder  over  now: 

Should  any  nation,  contrary  to  our  wishes,  suppose  it  may  better  find  its  advantages 
by  continuing  its  system  of  prohibition,  duties,  and  regulations,  it  behooves  us  to 
protect  our  citizens,  their  commerce  and  navigation,  by  counter  prohibitions,  duties, 
and  regulations,  also.  Free  commerce  and  navigation  are  not  to  be  given  in  exchange 
for  restrictions  and  vexations;  nor  are  they  likely  to  produce  a  relaxation  of  them. 

And  again: 

We  wish  to  encourage  navigation  and  commerce  by  throwing  open  all  the  doors  of 
commerce,  and  knocking  off  its  shackles.  But  as  this  can  not  be  done  for  others, 
unless  they  will  do  it  for  us,  and  there  is  no  probability  that  Europe  will  do  this,  I 
suppose  we  shall  be  obliged  to  adopt  a  system  which  may  shackle  them  in  our  ports 

as  they  do  us  in  theirs. 

Undoubtedly,  these  were  correct  views  when  Jefferson  uttered 
them.  Yet  how  much  more  pertinent  are  they  now,  and  how  much 
more  emphatic  \\ould  certainly  have  been  his  expression  if  he  were 
speaking  at  this  time,  when  foreign  Governments  not  only  impose 
high  duties  upon  our  manufactured  products  but  promote  the  exist- 
ence and  favor  the  operation  of  trusts  which  would  be  unlawful  here, 
but  which,  nevertheless,  seek  this  market  as  a  dumping  ground  for 
their  product  hi  unequal,  unfair  competition  with  domestic  manu- 
facture. 

To-day  many  of  our  great  manufacturing  interests,  in  order  to  carry 
on  their  foreign  trade  with  profit,  are  obliged  by  the  laws  of  those 
countries  to  establish  within  their  borders  and  subject  to  their  laws 


SCHEDULE   B.  829 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

foreign  factories.  To  outside  capital,  but  not  to  goods  manufactured 
elsewhere,  those  countries  issue  a  generous  invitation.  We  do  the 
same;  and  there  is  now  no  duty  or  embargo  upon  foreign  capital 
which  seeks  here  a  profitable,  competitive  field  for  its  operations; 
on  the  contrary,  it  meets  our  capital  on  an  equal  footing. 

The  tune  was  when  doubtless  this  was  not  so,  but  under  the 
late  interpretations  of  the  antitrust  laws  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  door  of  opportunity  to  competitive  industry  is  no  longer  closed 
and  boarded  up,  no  matter  whether  the  capital  employed  be  foreign 
or  domestic,  but  thrown  wide  open.  The  fact  that  the  output  of  a 
corporation  is  great  or  its  operations  extended,  is  not  the  test  of 
unlawf ulness ;  but  the  searching  question  is,  How  were  they  secured 
and  how  are  they  maintained?  If  by  monopolistic  practices,  the 
act  is  utterly  condemned  by  civil  and  criminal  statute,  and  unfair 
trade  and  competition  have  received  a  death  blow  at  the  hands  of 
our  greatest  court,  over  which  presides  the  wisest  judge  in  the 
English-speaking  world. 

Therefore  in  large  measure,  when  you  come  to  frame  your  laws,  you 
must,  as  a  matter  of  national  pride  and  commercial  prestige,  consider 
how  other  nations  treat  the  industry,  whose  future  you  are  affecting 
by  your  legislation. 

Jefferson  not  only  advocated  but  he  put  into  operation  something 
else,  which  shows  at  least — although  it  may  be  premature  for  you  to 
adopt  it — how  completely  relative  he  regarded  this  question  of  the 
tariff,  and  how  inseparably  associated  it  was  with  other  considerations 
having  to  do  with  the  national  welfare.  In  his  effort  to  benefit  the 
whole  people  he  saw  in  the  tariff  a  means  of  building  up  our  merchant 
marine;  and  in  1802  was  responsible  for  a  discriminating  tariff  which 
provided  that  goods  brought  to  this  country  in  American  bottoms 
should  pay  at  the  port  of  entry  a  much  less  tariff  than  those  brought 
in  foreign  bottoms.  And  as  a  result,  our  merchant  marine  received 
an  impetus  which  enabled  it  to  secure  a  mighty  influence  in  the  carry- 
ing trade  of  the  world — raising  it,  if  I  recall  rightly  the  statement  of  the 
chairman  of  this  committee,  from  17  to  90  per  cent,  which,  by  our 
slothfulness  and  inactivity  and  mistakes  and  indifference,  we  have 
all  but  lost. 

With  the  evidence  confronting  you  everywhere  that  the  whole 
subject  matter  of  tariff  revision  is  relative  and  not  absolute,  with  the 
certainty  that  what  you  must  do  is  not  only  to  raise  revenue  but  so 
to  raise  it  as  to  cause  the  least  disturbance  to  legitimate  business,  and 
setting  your  face  always  and  unalterably  against  methods  of  busi- 
ness— if  there  be  such — which  would  prey  on  the  community,  you 
are,  by  the  many  declarations  of  Democratic  leaders,  committed 
unqualifiedly  to  the  proposition  that  you  are  to  legislate  with  care 
and  foresight  and  equity,  so  that  neither  the  wheels  of  the  machinery 
of  government  nor  of  industry  shall  come  to  rest.  You  are  not  to 
legislate  either  for  a  glut  of  revenue  or  for  a  glut  of  apparent  but  unreal 
prosperity.  Too  great  a  revenue  might  be  responsible  for  national 
extravagance,  and  an  abnormal  prosperity  would  be  more  than  likely 
to  promote  undue  production  and  its  corresponding  depression 
together  with  a  disregard  of  many  considerations  which  must  enter 
into  our  conceptions  of  a  higher  and  more  responsive  citizenship. 


830  TARIFF  HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

Then,  too,  while  the  people  accepted  the  pledge  of  the  Democratic 
Party,  as  a  pledge  so  to  readjust  tariff  conditions  that,  so  far  as  possi- 
ble, inequalities  of  burdens  should  be  done  away  with,  it  was,  as  we 
all  know,  with  the  proviso  that  law-abiding  nidus  try  was  to  be  given 
a  fair  and  reasonable  opportunity  to  adjust  itself  to  the  new  order 
you  are  to  establish. 

That  not  only  rules  of  conduct  but  rights  of  property  often  proceed 
from  wrongs  is  familiar  enough,  not  only  to  men  of  my  profession 
but  to  all  intelligent  observers.  If  an  unjust  tariff  has  produced 
artificial  activity,  you  are  not  ruthlessly  to  destroy  the  industry  but 
to  seek  to  regulate  it  and  get  it  acclimated  to  the  new  conditions  of 
exposure.  You  are  not  to  take  the  hothouse  plant  which  this 
country  by  its  tariff  policy  rightly  or  wrongly — and  often  it  was 
wrongly  done,  I  am  free  to  admit — has  permitted  to  grow  up  and 
consign  it  to  rough  wind  and  weather  without  some  thought  of 
adequate  provision  for  its  shelter  and  support,  merely  telling  it  to 
enter  at  once  and  without  aid  into  the  struggle  for  existence  and  live. 
For  you  know  it  can  not  live,  but  must  inevitably  die. 

No  roving  commission  was  issued  to  the  Democratic  Party  to  com- 
mit injustice.  You  do  not  have  to  take  my  word  for  this.  There  sit 
men  on  this  committee  who  are  not  strangers  to  this  thought,  but  who 
have  given  it  forceful  utterance;  and  if  the  voters  of  this  country  had 
thought  otherwise,  no  one  in  his  senses  can  entertain  the  view  that 
the  late  election  would  not  have  had  an  entirely  different  result. 

Permit  me  to  give  you  a  further  authority  for  this  statement. 
In  1909  Mr.  Wilson  wrote  for  the  North  American  Review  an  article 
condemning  utterly  the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff.  He  characterized  it 
as  the  " Tariff  make-believe;"  and  I  am  in  as  much  accord  with  his 
presentation  of  the  matter  as  any  of  you  can  possibly  be.  Yet  he 
said  in  that  article  words  of  prudence  and  wisdom  and  justice,  just  as 
over  and  over  again  he  expressed  the  same  sentiment  in  many  a  cam- 
paign speech.  If  he  had  taken  any  other  attitude,  not  only  could  he 
not  have  been  elected  but  he  could  not  even  have  been  nominated. 
The  people  trusted  him;  they  trust  }TOU  and  you  will  not  now,  I  know, 
throw  overboard  the  chart  and  compass  of  reason  and  put  behind  you 
the  solemn  assurances  of  the  Democratic  Party  as  you  set  forth  on 
your  voyage,  for  that  would  be  to  invite  certain  shipwreck  not  only 
for  yourselves,  but  for  your  party  and  for  the  whole  people.  Rather 
you  will  summon  to  your  aid  and  keep  always  to  the  front  all  tried 
and  just  methods  to  enable  you  to  take  the  observations  which  will 
guide  you  aright.  And  certainly  one  of  the  methods  is  to  be  found 
in  these  words  from  the  President-elect : 

The  existing  system  was  built  up  by  statesmanlike  and  patriotic  men,  upon  a  theory 
which  even  the  most  skeptical  economists  must  concede  it  possible  to  found  a  valid  and 
effective  policy.  It  is  very  likely  that  by  slower,  sounder,  less  artificial  means  the 
country  might  have  worked  its  way  up  to  the  same  extraordinary  development  and 
success,  the  same  overwhelming  material  achievement  and  power;  but  that  is  a  ques- 
tion no  longer  worth  debate  by  practical  men.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  method  of 
artificial  stimulation  was  adopted,  has  been  persisted  in  from  generation  to  generation 
with  a  constant  increase  of  the  stimulation,  and  we  have  at  last,  by  means  of  it,  come  to 
our  present  case.  It  will  not  do  to  reverse  such  a  policy  suddenly  or  in  revolutionary 
fashion. 


SCHEDULE  B.  831 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

And  lie  added: 

Existing  protection  should  not  be  suddenly  withdrawn,  but  steadily  on  a  fixed  pro- 
gram upon  which  every  man  of  business  could  base  his  definite  forecast  and  systematic 
plan. 

I  could  multiply  additional  quotations  of  like  import  from  Mr. 
Wilson  and  other  leaders  of  the  Democratic  Party,  but  they  would 
merely  be  cumulative  and  need  only  to  be  referred  to  in  passing,  for 
the  view  expressed  is  so  sane  that  somewhere  in  the  tariff  revision 
program  it  must  find  expression. 

It  may  well  be  that  all  the  industries  I  represent  here  did  not  need 
to  have  all  this  said  in  their  behalf,  for  their  only  reasonably  pros- 
perous condition  rests  upon  the  security  of  a  present  ability  to  com- 
pete on  any  just  scale  with  foreign-made  goods.  Yet  in  a  measure  I 
say  it  in  behalf  of  them  all,  irrespective  of  their  ability  to  meet  such 
competition,  on  account  of  their  immediate  concern  with  the  general 
prosperity;  for  if  this  is  legislated  out  of  existence  those  industries, 
too,  will  find  themselves  among  the  debris  you  will  be  responsible  for. 
And  I  say  without  fear  of  contradiction  hereafter  that  if  these  reason- 
able views  are  not  given  heed  to,  we  shall  all  live  to  see  the  day — and 
we  do  not  need  to  live  long — when  there  will  be  a  reckoning  once 
and  finally  with  the  resentment  of  the  American  people. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  as  I  am  sure  will  be  the  case,  you  legislate 
wisely  and  do  not  reject  the  counsels  of  prudence  and  equity  you 
will — without  doing  violence  to  your  convictions,  but  with  their 
approval — enjoy  the  high  privilege  of  ushering  in  a  new  era  of  normal, 
legitimate  prosperity,  which  wifl  not  be  here  to-day  and  there  to- 
morrow, but  which  will  stimulate  and  perpetuate  as  well  the  steady, 
economic  growth  of  the  activities  of  a  whole  people. 

Only  by  such  a  course  can  you  hope  to  receive  the  commendation 
that  you  have  been  good  and  faithful  servants;  and  this  you  cannot 
expect  if  you  reject  the  very  cornerstone  on  which  you  have  agreed 
to  build  the  new  order;  you  can  not — to  quote  those  words  which 
sum  up  the  highest  obligations  for  political  as  well  as  social  conduct 
resting  on  all  of  us — keep  the  worcf  of  promise  to  the  ear  and  break 
it  to  the  hope. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Mr.  Auerbach,  I  am  interested  in  the  foreign-trust 
proposition.  It  has  been  represented  to  me  lately  by  the  glass 
manufacturers  in  this  country  that  there  is  in  Germany  a  manufac- 
turing concern,  of  which  the  former  owner,  upon  his  death,  created 
a  trust  in  the  Government  to  be  run  for  a  long  time  for  the  benefit 
of  the  employees.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  No;  I  am  not  familiar  with  it,  but  I  will  ask  and 
find  out. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  would  like  to  know  about  that.  If  there  is  such 
a  concern  in  Germany,  as  has  been  represented  to  me,  would  not 
that  be  a  very  serious  competitor  of  those  other  trusts  that  you 
speak  of  there  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  Of  course  I  should  have  to  assume  its  existence, 
as  I  do  not  know  about  it.  Its  operation  would  depend  upon  the 
terms  of  the  trust.  It  may  be  a  hard  and  fast  trust.  Trusts  as  a 
rule  being  favored  by  the  German  Government,  I  am  sure  the  Gov- 
ernment would  enter  upon  the  execution  of  no  undertaking  that 
would  interfere  with  this  general  policy. 


832  TABIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  Does  it  not  seem  to  you  that  we  would  have 
had  just  exactly  the  source  of  obtaining  the  information  that  you 
have  referred  to,  which  you  advocate,  had  it  not  been  for  the  de- 
liberate action  of  the  Democratic  Party  in  opposing  a  tariff  com- 
mission ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  No,  I  can  not  assent  to  that.  Bills  of  revenue 
originate  constitutionally  here,  and  I  think  you  should  have  aids  to 
this  committee  in  arriving  at  the  result;  but  I  do  not  think  con- 
stitutionally you  are  entitled  to  have  a  boss.  That  is  generally  my 
notion  about  the  Tariff  Board. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  There  was  no  intention  on  the  part  of  anybody 
that  the  Tariff  Commission  should  be  anything  more  than  a  mere 
instrument  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  facts  upon  which  this 
committee,  primarily,  and  Congress  were  to  act,  and,  as  I  under- 
stand, it  is  precisely  the  thing  you  are  asking  for;  in  fact,  I  heard 
you  make  a  rather  significant  remark,  it  seems  to  me,  a  little  while 
ago,  that,  if  this  committee  were  n,ot  fully  cognizant  of  the  question 
of  cost  of  production,  it  is  not  competent  to  legislate. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  I  think  so.  The  question  of  what  agencies  they 
shall  employ,  whether  an  agency  such  as  the  Tariff  Commission, 
created  in  the  way  in  which  it  was  created — not  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  all,  but  a  personal  agency  of  the  Executive 
Office — is  quite  another  thing.  I  do  not  by  any  means  intend  to 
approve  of  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  will  remember  that  Governor  Wilson,  in  his 
speech  of  acceptance,  said  that  the  tariff  would  be  revised  down- 
ward, and  steadily  downward. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  I  recall  his  statement. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  statement  was  accepted  by  the  Democratic 
Party  everywhere  throughout  the  country  as  the  policy  upon  which 
we  would  enter  if  brought  into  power. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  Yes;  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Now,  is  it  not  a  fact,  therefore,  that  any  statement 
before  this  committee  by  American  manufacturers  asking  us  to 
leave  the  duties  as  they  are  or  to  increase  them,  is  an  invitation  to 
us,  as  Democratic  members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  to 
break  the  pledge  that  our  candidate  made,  and  that  we  have  made, 
to  the  American  people  recently  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  Well,  if  there  were  any  undertaking  in  the  speech 
of  acceptance  by  the  President-elect  of  the  United  States  that  there 
was  to  bo  any  absolute  hide-bound  rule  by  which  you  were  to  deal 
with  industry,  irrespective  of  the  special  conditions  as  they  would 
arise;  if  he  has  made  that  commitment  on  the  part  of  himself  that 
this  was  to  be  revision  downward,  so  that  it  might  be  impossible  for 
you  to  carry  it  into  effect  without  gross  individual  injustice,  then  I 
say  that  this  speech  is  not  binding  upon  you.  I  believe  that  irrespec- 
tive of  what  lias  been  said  by  anybody  that  if  anyone  in  public  life  or 
seeking  public  of  I  ice  should  assume  that  arbitrary  position,  he  will, 
as  I  have  said,  have  to  meet  once  and  finally,  as  he  has  always  had  to 
meet  under  such  conditions,  the  resentment  of  the  American  people. 
Is  there  any  doubt  about  that,  in  your  opinion?  I  do  not  believe 
there  is.  However,  I  do  not  understand  from  any  declaration  Mr. 


SCHEDULE   B.  833 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

Wilson  has  made  that  he  believed  the  country  was  entering  upon  any 
such  course  of  procedure. 

Mr.  HILL.  In  the  course  of  your  remarks,  you  quoted  President- 
elect Wilson.  Now,  I  want  to  read  you  a  later  utterance  of  his.  On 
the  21st  day  of  August  of  this  year,  three  months  later,  he  made  this 
statement  in  New  Jersey: 

But  I  want  at  every  turn  of  every  argument  that  I  make  of  this  nature  to  say  that 
the  legitimate  enterprises  of  this  country  have  absolutely  nothing  to  fear — 

If  he  had  stopped  right  there,  I  would  have  a  word  to  say,  but  he 
continues : 

provided  they  will  stand  on  their  own  bottoms,  but  that  they  have  everything  to  fear 
if  all  they  have  under  them  is  the  prop  of  a  tax,  which  everybody  is  obliged  to  pay  in 
order  that  they  may  be  able  to  conduct  their  business,  and  I  believe  that  is  a  just 
principle  of  Government. 

Do  you  know  of  any  protected  industry  in  the  United  States  that 
is  not  sustained  by  the  prop  of  a  tax? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  I  think  that  is  right  doctrine.  If  the  sole  support 
of  an  industry  is  a  tax  enacted  for  its  own  selfish  interests,  and  that 
is  the  only  support  it  has,  it  ought  to  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  HILL,  lou  fail  to  recognize,  then,  or  take  into  consideration 
the  difference  in  wages  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  No,  clearly  not,  but  also  all  the  other  factors  I  have 
referred  to  which  go  to  make  up  the  difference  between  the  foreign 
and  domestic  cost  of  production.  What  Mr.  Wilson  clearly  intends 
to  state  is  that  each  industry  is  to  stand  upon  its  own  bottom  and  be 
put  upon  a  competitive  basis,  but  not  upon  a  ruinous  basis. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  importations  of  this  tariff 
are  onlv  about  half  as  much  as  thev  were  sixteen  years  ago,  under  the 
Wilson"  tariff? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  Yes;  very  appreciably  less,  and  that  is  due  to 
internal  competition  and  the  operations  of  the  Foreign  Trust. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Was  there  not  a  prosecution  some  years  ago  against 
the  plate  glass  people  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  company  was  that  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  plain  window  glass  company. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  your  opinion,  the  revision  which  is  to  "be  made 
must  still  be  downward  and  steadily  downward,  but  not  horizontally 
downward  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  I  do  not  know  that  I  quite  comprehend  the  mean- 
ing of  that  phrase.  Those  words  are  a  little  enigmatical  to  me.  I 
would  answer  that  question  by  saying  that  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a 
pledge  on  the  part  of  the  Democratic  Party  in  its  compact  with  the 
people  that  it  is  bound  to  revise  everything  it  finds  lying  around, 
irrespective  of  the  equities  of  the  case  and  irrespective  of  this  question 
of  foreign  and  domestic  cost  and  irrespective  of  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  foreign  industry  is  in  the  hands  of  a  trust. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  proportion  of  the  foreign  trade  is  controlled  by 
this  trust  that  you  speak  of  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  All  of  it 

Mr.  PALMER.  All  of  it. 

78059° — VOL  1 — 13 53 


834  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  All  of  it  ? 

Mr.  PALMER.  Absolutely  all  of  it  ? 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  All  of  it.  It  is  an  international  glass  trust  per- 
mitted by  the  Government.  Of  course,  all  such  trusts  are  not  only 
permitted  but  favored  by  foreign  Governments.  If  we,  too,  want  to 
favor  the  foreign  trusts,  operating  in  ways  distinctly  against  our 
public  policy,  well  and  good. 

Mr.  PALMER.  We  are  apt  to  consider  in  this  country  a  trust  as  a 
business  concern  which  controls  a  very  large  proportion  of  that  par- 
ticular business. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  I  think  that  would  be  erroneous. 

Mr.  PALMER.  We  do  so,  however. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  No.     I  do  not  think  you  and  I  do,  as  lawyers. 

Mr.  PALMER.  We  speak  of  the  Unitea  States  Steel  Corporation  as 
the  Steel  Trust,  yet  I  observe  that  it  controls  only  about  the  same 
proportion  of  steel  business  as  the  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co.  controls 
of  the  plate-glass  business. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  One  might  perhaps  be  justified  in  calling  that  a 
trust,  inasmuch  as  it  is  popularly  understood  that  the  Government  in 
the  pending  litigation  has  so  characterized  it.  A  corporation  may 
have  a  large  amount  of  business,  a  large  output,  and  a  large  control  of 
trade.  That  is  an  element  in  determining  what  is  a  trust.  But  that 
is  not  the  controlling  element,  the  final  thing.  Under  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Supreme  Court  the  question  now  is,  "How  was  the  volume 
and  control  secured,  and  how  are  they  maintained?  Were  they 
secured  through  monopolistic  practices,  and  are  they  maintained 
through  monopolistic  practices  either  by  raising  the  price  or  by  cut- 
throat practices,  by  lowering  the  price  or  otherwise,  so  that  a  com- 
petitor is  killed  and  its  business  absorbed  ?"  If  so,  there  is  a  clear 
violation  of  our  antitrust  acts. 

Mr.  DALZELL.  As  I  understand,  all  you  want  is  to  maintain  the 
present  law. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  That  is  all  I  dare  ask  for,  though  the  difference 
between  the  foreign  and  home  cost  of  production  as  set  forth  in  our 
brief  would  justify  me  in  asking  for  an  increase  rather  than  in  merely 
protesting  against  a  decrease  of  duty. 

Mr.  AUERBACH.  If  there  is  anything  further  you  would  like  to  have, 
we  shall  be  glad  to  submit  it.  The  Audit  Co.  of  New  York  has  not 
been  able  to  do  all  of  its  work  yet,  but  if  you  want  it  done,  although  it 
will  be  a  matter  of  considerable  expense,  several  thousand  dollars,  the 
Audit  Co.  will  go  over  every  plant  engaged  in  this  industry  in  the 
United  States  and  submit  its  report,  as  you  will  find  in  the  back  of  the 
brief  it  has,  within  the  limited  time  at  its  disposal,  done  as  to  two  or 
three  corporations. 

Before  I  close,  I  wish  to  say  that  I  am  told  that  the  trust  Mr.  Palmer 
has  referred  to  is  a  trust  in  optical  goods  in  Germany,  Schoot  &  Genos- 
sen,  at  Jena,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  plate-glass  industry. 


SCHEDULE  B.  835 

PABAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 
BRIEF  SUBMITTED  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  AMERICAN  PLATE  GLASS  INDUSTRY. 

[Represented  by  the  following  companies:  Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co..  Glassmere,  Pa.;  American  Plate  Glass 
Co.,  Kane,  Pa.;  Columbia  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Blairsville,  Pa.;  Federal  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Ottawa,  111.;  Heiden- 
kamp  Mirror  Co.,  Springdale,  Pa.;  Penn  American  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Alexandria,  Ind.;  Pittsburgh  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Saginaw,  Mich.;  St.  Louis  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Valley 
Park,  Mo.;  Standard  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Butler,  Pa.;  Edward  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Rossford,  Ohio;  Kit- 
tanning  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Kittanning,  Pa.] 

To  the  honorable  members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives: 

Although  the  above  companies  are  rivals  in  business  and  carrying  on  their  operations 
under  keen  competitive  conditions  between  themselves,  they  have  joined  in  this 
appeal  to  Congress  because  the  plate-glass  industry  in  the  United  States  is  in  a  pre- 
carious condition  even  under  the  present  tariff.  This  condition  exists  by  reason  of 
the  enormous  difference  between  the  cost  of  production  here  and  abroad,  and  also 
owing  to  the  operations  of  the  European  Plate  Glass  Trust.  This  trust  in  its  control 
of  the  output  and  the  regulation  of  prices  is  favored  by  the  policy  of  the  foreign 
Government,  while  in  this  country  a  similar  trust  would  be  condemned  by  public 
opinion  and  be  unlawful. 

The  subject  of  this  brief  comprises  paragraphs  100,  102,  103,  104,  and  109  of  the 
Payne-Aldrich  tariff  bill.     In  the  following  presentation  we  refer  specifically  to 
paragraph  102  which  has  to  do  with  oast  polished  plate  glass,  unsilvered. 
The  present  duty  under  paragraph  102  is  as  follows: 

Cents  per 
square  foot. 

On  plate  glass  measuring  384  square  inches  and  under 10 

On  plate  glass  above  384  square  inches  and  not  exceeding  720  square  inches. . .      12£ 
On  plate  glass  above  720  square  inches 22J 

WORLD   PRODUCTION   AND   CONSUMPTION. 

The  production  of  plate  glass  throughout  the  world  is  estimated  at  125,000,000  feet, 
a  little  less  than  one-half  of  which  is  produced  and  consumed  in  the  United  States. 
The  European  factories  have  a  capacity  of  45  to  50  per  cent  more  than  their  present 
production.  Their  production  is  curtailed  and  prices  fixed  under  a  trust  combina- 
tion which  would  be  indictable  here. 

CONDITIONS   OF   INDUSTRY   ABROAD. 

Factories. — The  plate  glass  factories  of  Europe  are  equipped  with  modern  machinery 
and  are  as  up-to-date  and  efficient  as  those  of  the  United  States.  A  great  advantage  to 
the  foreign  manufacturer  is  that  the  cost  of  building  and  equipping  the  manufacturing 
plant  abroad  is  less  than  one-half  the  cost  of  a  similar  plant  here.  This  item  is  partic- 
ularly important  in  that  it  enables  them  to  turn  over  their  capital  every  8  to  10 
months,  whereas  in  the  United  States  it  is  impossible  to  turn  the  capital  over  more  often 
than  once  in  two  years.  This  extraordinary  condition  is  made  possible,  first,  by  the 
difference  in  the  original  cost  of  the  plant;  and  second,  by  the  fact  that  they  are  main- 
taining through  their  syndicate  operations  a  very  high  price  for  their  product  which 
would  be  considered  intolerable  in  this  country,  whereas  the  market  conditions  in 
the  United  States  have  barely  permitted  the  manufacturers  to  maintain  their  existence. 
This  makes  the  overhead  charges  and  depreciation  of  the  Belgian  manufacturers, 
figured  per  foot,  materially  less  than  one-half  what  they  are  in  this  country. 

Labor. — The  foreign  plants  have  the  advantage  of  labor  that  is  better  trained  and 
more  skillful  than  American  labor,  as  abroad  the  trade  descends  from  father  to  son, 
and  here  the  laborer  has  to  be  trained  and  developed. 

The  rate  of  wages  in  Belgium,  the  chief  producer  and  exporter  of  plate  glass,  is  less 
than  one-third  that  which  is  paid  in  this  country,  and  enables  the  manufacturers 
there  to  produce  glass  cheaper  than  any  other  country  in  the  world. 


836 


TABIFF   HEARINGS. 


PABAGEAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

The  producing  countries  are  Belgium,  Germany,  Austria,  France,  England,  Italy, 
Spain,  and  Russia.  As  Belgium  produces  more  glass  than  any  of  the  other  countries, 
at  the  lowest  cost,  and  .exports  95  per  cent  of  its  product,  we  submit  herewith  a  report 
of  the  consul  general  residing  at  Brussels,  giving  rates  of  wages  in  Belgium,  to  wit: 

[United  States  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Reports,  Oct.  31, 1912,  p.  566.    From  Consul  General  Ethelbert 

Watts,  Brussels,  Belgium.] 

"FOREIGN  WAGES  AND  COST  OF  LIVING. 

"According  to  data  published  by  the  Government,  wages  in  Belgium  are  lower 
generally  than  in  any  other  European  country.  The  Annuaire  Statistique,  which  gives 
the  official  figures  for  1910,  shows  the  following  daily  wages: 


Number  of  wage  earners. 

Daily  wages. 

Number  of  wage  earners. 

Daily  wages. 

Male,  under  16  years: 
4  667        .                 .... 

Less   than   $0.10 

Male,  over  16  years—  Continued. 
1,653  

$1.25-*1.35 

12,748  

$0.  10-.  19 

4,357  ,  

$1.35    and    over. 

15  090 

.  19-.  29 

Female,  under  16  years: 

10,128..   .            

.'0.  29  and   over. 

3,575  

Less    than  $0.10 

Male  over  16  years' 

g  480  .     .                  

$0.  10-$0.  19 

20,883       .              

Less   than  $0.  29 

6,946  

$0.  19    and  over. 

28  638 

$0.  29-$0.  38 

Female,  over  16  years' 

62,195  

.38-    .48 

6,609  

Less  than  $0.  19 

87  Oil 

.48-    .58  i 

22,420    

$0.  19-$0.  29 

100  367  .     ... 

.  58-    .  67 

21.349  

.29-    .38 

65  781 

.  67-    .  77 

13  429 

.38-    .48 

50,874        

.  77-     .  87 

5,362  

.48-    .58 

21  134 

.  87-    .  96 

2  233     

.58-    .67 

13,832  

.97-  1.06 

652   

.  67-    .  77 

5,776  

1.06-  1.16 

395  

$0.77    and   over. 

3,668  

1.16-  1.25 

"About  65  per  cent  of  men  workers  over  16  years  earn  less  than  68  cents.  Of  the 
women,  67  per  cent  earn  less  than  39  cents,  and  93  per  cent  less  than  58  cents. 

"In  1907  inquiry  was  made  at  the  public  schools  of  18  towns,  distributed  over  the 
country,  into  the  quantity  and  kind  of  food  each  one  of  the  children  had  had  during 
the  preceding  24  hours.  The  answers  compiled  have  shown  that  21.33  per  cent  of  the 
children  were  insufficiently  nourished." 

The  rates  of  wages  paid  to  Belgian  plate-glass  workers  are  no  higher  than  the  general 
rates  above  given,  while  the  average  rate  of  wages  paid  by  the  American  plate-glass 
manufacturers  is  about  $2.30  per  day. 

Tariff. — Germany  (whose  tariff  is  admittedly  the  most  scientific  in  the  world)  taxes 
plate  glass  at  a  flat  rate  equivalent  to  12.42  cents  per  square  foot;  Austria,  a  flat  rate 
equivalent  to  12.60  cents  per  square  foot;  Spain,  a  flat  rate  equivalent  to  14.80  cents 
per  square  foot;  France,  5.40  rents  to  6.30  cents  per  square  foot;  and  Italy,  7.79  cents  to 
9.86  cents  per  square  foot.  The  European  countries  maintain  this  tariff  notwithstand- 
ing that  their  costs  of  production  are  not  materially  higher  than  the  cost  of  production 
of  Belgian  manufacturers. 

Foreign  Plate  Glass  Trust. — The  European  manufacturers  are  organized  into  one  of 
the  strongest  and  most  successful  trusts  known  to  the  commercial  world,  controlling 
absolutely  and  arbitrarily  the  output  of  its  members.  This  trust,  known  as  the  Inter- 
national Glass  Convention,  was  organized  in  1904.  and  has  been  extended  until  1924. 
It  includes  nearly  all  the  continental  manufacturers  of  plate  glass.  It  has  been  very 
successful  in  its  operations,  some  of  its  members  earning  as  high  as  83  per  cent  per 
annum  on  their  capital,  and  paying  as  high  as  30  per  cent  per  annum  in  dividends, 
as  is  shown  by  the  following  extracts  from  the  balance  sheets  of  the  two  principal 
manufacturers  in  Belgium,  published  in  1911,  according  to  the  Belgian  law. 


Capital. 

Earnings. 

Per  cent. 

Dividend. 

Percent. 

Saint  Rooh 

Francs. 
4  500  000 

Francs. 
3.384,047 

75 

Francs. 
1.350.000 

30 

2  000  000 

1  004  93S 

83 

COO  000 

30 

SCHEDULE   B.  837 

PARAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

This  trust  and  its  operations  are  described  in  the  following  extracts  from  the  United 
States  Daily  Consular  Trade  Reports: 

[United  States  Consular  and  Trade  Reports,  Aug.  18, 1909,  pp.  2-3.] 

"PLATE  GLASS  TRUST  IN  EUROPE. 
*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"  The  scope  of  the  plate-glass  syndicate  is  mainly  to  place  the  manufacturer  of  plate 
glass  in  direct  connection  with  the  consumers  of  this  article,  in  order,  in  a  measure, 
to  give  stability  to  the  selling  price  and  to  prevent  overproduction,  which  always 
results  in  excessive  damage  in  any  form  of  industrial  activity. 

"LIMITING  PRODUCTION. 

"In  order  to  attain  this  object,  the  syndicate  agreed  theoretically,  it  is  stated,  to 
reduce  the  productive  capacity  of  the  syndicated  concerns  to  126  days  per  year  work- 
ing at  full  power.  They  have  therefore  imposed  on  the  members  of  the  combine  a 
stoppage  of  work  for  a  period  of  180  days  out  of  the  306  working  days  of  the  year.  In 
this  arrangement  there  is  a  tendency  to  oppose  the  interests  of  the  working  force,  the 
members  of  which  can  with  difficulty  accept  such  a  long  period  of  enforced  idleness. 
In  order  to  obviate  this  inconvenience  the  shutdown  was  in  practice  regulated  as 
follows:  The  factories  in  the  combine  were  forced  to  remain  in  operation  during  the 
entire  year,  but  with  a  productive  capacity  of  machinery  that  would  limit  the  output 
to  what  it  would  have  been  had  they  worked  but  126  days  during  the  year.  Thus,  a 
factory  possessing  10  machines,  according  to  the  agreement,  would  have  a  productive 
capacity  of  1,260  days  working  at  full  force.,  Instead  of  working  126  days  at  full  force, 
however,  the  factory  would  work  during  the  entire  year  but  four  of  its  machines, 
leaving  the  remaining  six  idle.  ^This  arrangement  enabled  the  managers  of  the  differ- 
eat  factories  in  the  combine  to  eliminate  the  least  valuable  element  among  their  work- 
ing forces,  and  to  retain  only  the  most  skillful  workmen.  Besides,  there  resulted  a 
saving  in  the  cost  of  operating  a  large  number  of  machines. 

******* 

"  The  board  of  management  (conseil  general)  of  the  international  syndicate  follows 
very  carefully  the  movements  of  the  different  markets;  the  board  meets  every  three 
months  in  order  to  regulate  the  matter  of  production.  Besides  a  special  committee 
examines  each  month  all  statistics  communicated  by  the  members  of  the  syndicate, 
while  an  organization  composed  of  agents  of  the  principal  factories  meets  at  least  once 
a  month  in  order  to  regulate  the  question  of  orders  received  and  communicate  to  the 
board  of  managers  such  information  as  may  be  deemed  opportune." 

The  United  States  trade  report  of  July  22,  1912,  page  376,  says,  concerning  the 
Belgium  industry: 

"CONDITIONS  IN  THE  PLATE-GLASS  INDUSTRY. 

"Plate  glass  is  one  of  the  most  important  articles  of  export  to  the  United  States. 
The  shipments  last  year  were  valued  at  $568,199,  compared  with  $1,166,026  for  the 
previous  year.  The  large  decrease  last  year  was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  1910  one  of 
the  principal  plate  glass  factories  in  the  United  States  was  destroyed  by  fire,  thereby 
increasing  the  demand  for  the  Belgian  product. 

"In  1904  the  International  Glass  Convention  was  organized,  with  a  view  to  control 
the  production  and  sale  of  polished  glass.  With  the  exception  of  two  companies,  one 
in  France  and  the  other  in  Belgium,  all  the  plate-glass  companies  in  Germany,  Austria, 
Belgium,  France,  Netherlands,  and  Italy  agreed  to  the  convention  which  is  still  in 
operation  and  which  operates  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned.  Since  the  agreement 
the  plate-glasss  manufacturers  have  prospered,  while  prior  to  that  time  the  industry  was 
unsatisfactory.  Great  improvements  have  been  made  in  the  machinery.  A  glass- 
polishing  machine  of  1  square  meter  to-day  produces  as  much  or  more  than  one  of  2 
square  meters  before  the  convention.  Great  improvements  have  been  made  in  the 
manufacturing  of  the  rough  glass  (glace"  brute)  and  the  cost  greatly  reduced.  Eight 
years  ago  the  cost  of  manufacturing  glass  in  Belgium  was  9  to  10  francs  ($1.74  to  $1.93 
per  square  meter  (10.76  square  feet).  At  present  it  is  5.60  to  6.50  francs  ($1.06  to  $1.25) 
and  rough  glass  is  now  manufactured  at  the  cost  of  less  than  2.50  francs  (48J  cents)  per 
square  meter  (10.76  square  feet)  or  4J  cents  per  square  foot." 


838 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

The  report  of  November  6,  1912,  states  as  follows: 

"Belgium  plate-glass  manufacturers  are  very  prosperous,  paying  yearly  dividends 
as  high  as  30  per  cent. .  Because  of  the  cheap  labor  the  plate  glass  industry  in  Belgium 
maintains  on  all  foreign  markets  its  power  as  price  regulator.  The  advantage  of  a  low 
cost  of  production  (11  cents  United  States  currency  per  square  foot  of  polished  plate 
glass)  is  assisted  by  the  successful  operation  of  the  international  syndicate  of  plate 
glass  manufacturers  which  regulates  the  selling  prices  according  to  conditions  existing 
in  such  foreign  market.  These  arbitrary  selling  prices  are  consequently  of  great 
variety.  For  example,  the  same  glass  and  the  same  size,  quality  for  silvering  are  sold 
(off  the  gross  prices  of  the  same  list)  at  20  per  cent  discount  for  England  and  30  per  cent 
discount  for  the  United  States,  and  quality  for  window  at  30  per  cent  and  2J  per  cent 
for  England  against  a  discount  of  45  per  cent  and  more  for  the  United  States. 

"The  reason  for  this  discrimination  is  said  to  be  the  fact  that  American  plate  glass 
manufacturers  are  not  associated  with  the  European  syndicate  and  consequently  the 
syndicate  establishes  a  low  range  of  prices  for  the  American  market  on  the  kinds  and 
sizes  of  glass  which,  through  overproduction,  must  be  disposed  of  by  the  American 
manufacturers  regardless  of  cost." 

Organization  of  foreign  sales  agency. — Within  the  last  30  days  a  new  and  most  im- 
portant step  has  been  taken  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  of  plate  glass.  The  trust 
described  above  left  to  each  factory  the  sale  of  its  own  product,  under  certain  restrictions 
which  left  the  manufacturers  in  limited  competition  with  each  other.  The  product 
of  each  factory  being  handled  separately,  the  trust  had  not  the  power  to  control  and 
regulate  markets  as  it  would  have  had  if  it  had  charge  of  the  selling  of  the  entire  product 
of  all  its  members.  This  power  has  just  been  vested  in  the  trust  through  the  organiza- 
tion in  Belgium  of  a  selling  company,  which  will  purchase  from  each  manufacturer 
his  entire  product  and  then  distribute  and  sell  it  in  such  markets  and  at  such  prices 
as  is  deemed  to  the  best  interest  of  all  the  manufacturers  in  the  syndicate.  The  con- 
trol of  the  entire  output  of  the  factories  gives  the  trust  an  enormous  power.  It  can 
undersell  competitors  in  any  market  in  the  world  and  recoup  its  losses  by  adding  them 
to  the  price  of  glass  in  markets  that  it  controls.  The  trust  is  therefore  in  a  position  to 
at  once  successfully  invade  the  American  market,  which  consumes  practically  half 
the  glass  production  of  the  world,  and  is  the  only  market  which  the  foreign  manufac- 
turer does  not  at  present  control,  although  it  does  regulate  the  prices  upon  part  of  the 
American  product  and  could  easily  do  so  on  all  of  it. 

CONDITIONS   OF   THE   INDUSTRY   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Production. — The  production  in  the  United  States  is  about  60,000,000  square  feet, 
about  47  per  cent  of  which  is  produced  by  the  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co.  and  the 
remainder  by  11  separate  companies.  None  of  the  American  product  is  exported, 
excepting  a  negligible  quantity  to  contiguous  territory  to  supply  pressing  require- 
ments. 

The  capital  invested  in  the  industry  in  this  country  is  about  $49,000,000,  the  smallest 
concern  in  the  industry  having  a  capital  investment  of  about  $1,000,000.  The  average 
number  of  men  directly  employed  in  the  industry  in  this  country  is  about  11,000. 
Those  indirectly  employed  will  equal  more  than  twice  this  number. 

Importations. — Importations  of  unsilvered  polished  plate  glass  into  the  United 
States  from  190G  to  1911,  inclusive,  in  feet,  were: 


Duty. 


1906 1,050,313 


1907 1,207,576 


1910 
1911 


10  cents. 
505,478 
390, 159 


Duty. 


10  cents. 
5,178,212 
4,577,059 
2,590,302 
1,611,845 
49,706 

12\  cents. 
2,057,277 
2,800,542 


Duty. 


S2\  cents. 
898,294 
741,947 
643,715 
300,010 
14,813 

$&\  cents. 
511,860 
683,278 


Duty. 


S5  cents. 
164,416 
180,913 
150,345 
22,517 
7,068 


Total. 


7,291,235 
6,707,495 
3,827,224 
2,279,933 


3, 150, 176 
3,873,979 


An  inspection  of  the  table  of  imports  given  above  shows  that  most  of  the  importa- 
tions consist  of  small  sixes.  Small  sizes  of  plate  glass  have  never  been  adequately 
protected,  and  the  American  product  under  384  square  inches,  now  bearing  a  duty 
of  10  cents  per  square  foot,  and  above  same  but  not  exceeding  720  square  inct  es 
bearing  a  duty  of  12£  cents  per  square  foot,  does  not  yield  an  average  price  equal  to 


SCHEDULE  B. 


839 


PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

the  cost  of  production.  (See  Annexed  report  of  the  Audit  Co.)  This  was  not  im- 
portant originally,  because  the  production  in  this  country  was  not  equal  to  the  demand 
for  large  sheets  and  there  were  large  quantities  of  all  sizes  imported.  The  manu- 
facturer in  those  days  contented  himself  with  selling  such  quantities  of  small  glass 
in  the  two  brackets  named  as  resulted  from  breakage  and  was  incidental  to  the  op- 
eration of  his  plant,  which  amounted  to  about  10  per  cent. 

Prices  to  consumer. — The  prices  to  consumers  of  plate  glass  in  the  United  States 
have,  on  the  whole,  been  in  distinct  contrast  to  the  upward  tendency  in  the  price  of 
most  commodities  during  the  last  10  years,  while  the  manufacturers  nave  been  com- 
pelled to  pay  more  for  the  materials  entering  into  its  production  and  have  been  com- 
pelled to  increase  wages  in  keeping  with  the  general  upward  tendency  of  wages,  all 
of  which  for  a  time  increased  the  cost  of  production.  Nevertheless,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  labor-saving  devices  and  new  inventions,  the  tendency  in  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction for  the  last  four  years  has  been  downward,  and  the  cost  to  the  consumer  has 
also  had  a  downward  tendency,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  table,  giving  the  retail 
price  to  the  actual  consumer: 


1875 

1880 

1885 

1890 

1895 

1900 

1905 

1908 

1912 

1  toSfeet  

$0.71 

$0.51 

$0.46 

$0.40 

$0.30 

$0.31 

$0.  1875 

$0.  1875 

$0.22 

3  to  5  feet  

.84 

.61 

.55 

.48 

.36 

.38 

.225 

.225 

.247 

5  to  10  feet  

1.12 

.80 

.72 

.64 

.48 

.60 

.36 

.36 

.342 

10  to  25  feet  

1.49 

1.06 

.96 

.85 

.63 

.81 

.416 

.39 

.365 

25  to  50  feet  

1.56 

1.11 

1.01 

.89 

.66 

.85 

.436 

.408 

.38 

50  to  100  feet  

1.69 

1.21 

1.09 

.97 

.72 

.90 

.462 

.432 

.392 

COST   OP   MANUFACTURE    OF   GLASS   IN   THE   UNITED    STATES. 

At  the  hearing  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  1908  there  was  a  conflict 
of  testimony  as  to  the  cost  of  manufacturing  plate  glass  in  this  country.  At  that  time 
a  representative  of  the  importers  of  plate  glass  stated  that  the  importers  "would  ask 
for  nothing  better  than  to  have  the  subject  (cost)  gone  over  by  a  public  accountant 
and  the  new  tariff  based  on  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  production  here  and 
abroad."  (Hearings  of  19'08,  Schedule  B,  p.  1124.) 

Upon  receipt  of  your  notice  of  these  hearings  the  Audit  Co.  of  New  York  was  author- 
ized to  proceed  at  once  with  the  work  of  ascertaining  the  cost  of  production  of  the 
American  manufacturers  of  plate  glass  by  auditing  the  books  of  the  plate-glass  manu- 
facturers in  this  country,  and  has  worked  diligently  upon  the  preparation  of  this  audit, 
but  has  not  been  able  to  complete  an  audit  of  all  the  companies  up.  to  the  date  of  draw- 
ing this  brief.  It  has  found  that  the  average  cost  of  manufacturing  plate  glass  by  the 
companies  so  far  examined  was,  in  1909,  28.16  cents  per  square  foot  and  in  1912,  23.98 
cents  per  square  foot  before  adding  depreciation.  With  depreciation  added,  but 
without  allowing  anything  for  interest  on  bonds  or  capital  invested,  the  cost  of  glass 
per  square  foot  was,  in  1909,  33.71  cents  and  in  1912,  28.45  cents.  (See  audit  annexed.) 
The  Audit  Co.'s  chief  mechanical  engineer  has  carefully  estimated  the  cost  of  de- 
preciation over  and  above  the  sums  which  have  been  charged  for  repairs  and  main- 
tenance. The  aggregate  charged  for  the  maintenance  of  buildings  and  equipment, 
including  the  depreciation,  aggregates  but  12  per  cent  on  the  actual  costs  of  the  build- 
ings and  equipment,  which  is  not  higher  than  exists  in  many  other  lines  of  manufacture 
in  the  United  States,  although  the  strain  on  much  of  the  equipment  is  very  great, 
owing  to  the  very  high  temperature  and  the  necessity  for  running  power  plants  with 
less  than  normal  rest. 

The  average  selling  prices  obtained  during  the  years  ending  July  31,  1909,  and 
November  30,  1912,  were  as  follows: 


Year  ending 
in  1909. 

Year  ending 
in  1912. 

384  square  inches  and  under                                                .  .         

Cents. 
16.01 

Cents. 
13.43 

Above  384  square  inches  to  5  square  feet  

22.39 

21.45 

Over  5  square  feet                                                                            

29.97 

28.64 

A  comparison  of  the  foregoing  costs  before  deducting  depreciation  or  any  interest 
in  bonds  or  capital,  compared  with  the  average  selling  prices  for  the  same  periods,  show 
that  all  glass  under  5  feet  was  sold  at  a  large  loss,  while  the  margin  of  profit  on  glass 


840  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

over  5  feet  was  but  1.81  cents  per  square  foot  in  1909  and  but  4.66  cents  in  1912.  If 
we  include  depreciation,  which  is  an  actual  cost  of  production  and  should  be  invariably 
considered,  there  existed  on  sales  of  glass  over  5  square  feet  an  actual  loss  in  1909  and 
but  nineteen  one-hundredths  cent  profit  per  square  foot  in  1912. 

The  companies  which  have  been  examined  by  the  Audit  Co.  on  the  average  there- 
fore show  losses  instead  of  gains,  after  considering  depreciation,  but  before  allowing 
anything  for  interest  on  bonds  or  upon  actual  capital  invested. 

The  companies  examined  are  fair  examples  of  a  majority  of  the  manufacturers. 

If  this  committee  desires  it,  the  audit  company  will  be  instructed  to  proceed  with 
the  audits  of  the  remaining  companies  or  we  shall  be  glad  to  have  the  committee 
designate  any  competent  auditing  concern  to  complete  the  audits. 

FOREIGN   COST  OF  PLATE   GLASS. 

The  cost  of  plate  glass  abroad  is  understood  to  be  from  10  to  11  cents  per  square 
foot,  and  this  is  borne  out  by  the  United  States  Daily  Consular  and  Trade  Keports  of 
July  22,  1912  (p.  376): 

"Eight  years  ago  the  cost  of  manufacturing  glass  in  Belgium  was  9  to  10  francs 
($1.74  to  $1.93)  per  square  meter  (10.76  square  feet).  At  present  it  is  5.60  to  6.50 
francs  ($1.06  to  $1.25),  and  rough  glass  is  now  manufactured  at  the  cost  of  less  than 
2.50  francs  (48£  cents)  per  square  meter  (10.76  square  feet),  or  4£  cents  per  square 
foot." 

And  November  6,  1912  (p.  688): 

"  The  advantage  of  a  low  cost  of  production  (11  cents,  United  States  currency,  per 
square  foot  of  polished  plate  glass)  is  assisted  by  the  successful  operation  of  the  inter- 
national syndicate  of  plate-glass  manufacturers,  which  regulates  the  selling  prices 
according  to  conditions  existing  in  each  foreign  market." 

The  present  Belgian  cost,  as  above,  is  the  cost  on  the  basis  of  operating  at  66  per 
cent  of  their  capacity,  and  would  be  decreased  if  the  foreign  syndicate  should  release 
the  excess  capacity  and  let  their  factories  run  to  full  capacity . 

FREIGHT  RATES. 

The  transportation  problem  is  another  phase  of  the  tariff  question,  and  must  be 
taken  into  account.  Plate  glass  can  be  imported  from  Antwerp,  Belgium,  to  any  of 
the  Pacific  coast  cities  for  approximately  2  cents  per  square  foot  and  in  any  quantity. 
We  now  pay  the  railroads  in  this  country  about  7£  cents  per  square  foot  to  transport 
plate  glass  from  the  factories  to  the  Pacific  coast  in  carloads  and  about  10  cents  on 
less  than  carloads,  and  the  railroads  have  filed  rates  to  increase  this  charge  to  10  cents 
per  square  foot  in  carloads  and  18  cents  per  square  foot  on  less  than  carload  quantities. 
The  rate  from  Antwerp  to  New  Orleans  is  less  than  1  cent  per  square  foot  regardless 
of  the  quantity  of  plate  glass  shipped.  The  rate  from  the  Pittsburgh  district  factories 
to  New  Orleans  on  American-made  plate  glass  is  about  3£  cents  in  carloads  and  about 
5£  cents  per  square  foot  on  less  than  carloads. 

ALL  PLATE   GLASS   COSTS   THE    SAME   PER   SQUARE   FOOT,    REGARDLESS   OF  SIZE. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  square  foot  of  plate  glass  costs  the  same  amount 
whether  manufactured  in  large  or  small  plates,  because  it  must  of  necessity  be  cast 
first  in  large  plates  exclusively.  Glass  can  not  economically  be  melted  in  small 
quantities.  It  is  necessary  to  manufacture  in  large  sizes,  in  the  course  of  which 
manufacturing  process  the  unavoidable  breaking  and  cutting  down  for  imperfections 
produces  some  smaller  sizes  under  5  square  feet.  Normally  this  production  of  small 
sizes,  to  wit,  under  5  square  feet,  is  about  10  per  cent. 

In  answer  to  the  statement  made  by  the  representative  of  the  importers  four  years 
ago,  that  the  cost  of  small  glass  was  not  the  same  as  the  cost  of  large  glass,  and  to  the 
effect  that  the  small  glass  was  a  by-product,  we  wish  to  distinctly  say  that  neither 
one  of  these  statements  is  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  Assuming  now  for  the  sake 
of  argument  that  the  10  per  cent  of  glass  under  5  square  feet  above  referred  to  is  a 
by-product,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  consumption  of  the  country  for  glass 
of  this  character  has  now  grown  to  be  nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  entire  production, 
which  compels  the  manufacturer  to  cut  35  to  40  per  cent  of  additional  glass  which 
would  normally  be  large  sizes  down  to  the  market  requirements  under  5  square  feet, 
and  which  can  certainly  not  be  considered  a  by-product  from  any  standpoint. 

The  query  may  naturally  arise  as  to  why  the  manufacturer  should  supply  this 
additional  glass  if  he  does  it  at  a  loss.  The  answer  is  that  by  increasing  his  output 


SCHEDULE  B.  841 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

by  this  large  additional  amount  of  business  he  is  enabled  to  operate  his  plants  nearly 
to  their  capacity,  and  thus  reduce  his  general  production  cost.  If  the  American 
manufacturer  were  to  cease  to  supply  this  business,  the  cost  of  production  would  be 
advanced  at  least  3  cents  per  foot. 

We  do  not  claim  that  all  glass  under  5  square  feet  is  sold  at  a  loss,  because  for  the 
finer  qualities  we  get  what  appears  to  be  a  fair  price;  but  in  order  to  secure  the  small 
pieces  of  fine  quality,  it  is  necessary  to  cut  out  of  the  large  plates  the  patches  of  fine 
quality,  with  the  result  that  this  cutting  reduces  the  balance  of  the  plate  to  odds 
and  ends  and  strips.  The  average  price  secured  for  all  the  glass  sold  under  5  square 
feet  has  always  netted  a  loss  to  the  manufacturer, 

FOREIGN   TRUST   SELLING   AGENCY  A   NEW   PERIL  TO   THE   AMERICAN   INDUSTRY. 

The  great  danger  to  the  American  plate-glass  industry  is  that  the  foreign  trust, 
through  its  newly  formed  selling  agency,  is  in  a  position  to  run  its  plants  at  increased 
capacity,  and  by  so  doing  reduce  its  general  cost  very  considerably  and  to  dump 
the  surplus  product  into  the  United  States  at  shop  cost  or  less.  The  foreign  trust 
selling  agency  can  sell  its  surplus  product  in  the  American  market  at  a  price  of  10 
or  11  cents  per  square  foot.  This  price,  plus  the  existing  rate  of  the  American  tariff, 
would  enable  the  glass  to  be  sold  to  the  jobbers  in  the  United  States  at  an  average 
price  which  the  American  manufacturer  would  have  to  meet  at  a  loss.  This  would 
drive  the  American  manufacturers  out  of  business. 

When  it  is  considered  that  there  is  this  trust  in  Europe  which  has  controlled  the 
output  for  years  and  that  within  the  last  30  days  it  has  organized  a  selling  agency 
which  will  handle  the  entire  product  and  sell  it  at  such  prices  as  may  seem  best  to 
the  foreign  manufacturers,  and  that  the  only  market  in  the  world  in  which  they 
can  dump  their  product  is  the  American  market  (the  only  market  they  do  not  now 
control),  your  committee  must  realize  that  there  is  a  grave  danger  hanging  over  the 
American  industry  which  should  incline  Congress  to  increase  rather  than  to  main- 
tain the  present  rate. 

The  argument  so  far  has  treated  of  cast  polished  plate  glass,  unsilvered,  covered 
in  paragraph  102  of  the  existing  tariff.  All  glass  covered  by  paragraphs  100,  103, 
104,  and  109  is  competitive  with  the  product  of  the  American  factories,  and  the 
differences  between  the  rates  of  tariff  fixed  in  those  paragraphs  and  those  fixed  in 
paragraph  102  are  in  logical  balance  with  the  difference  in  the  character  of  the  prod- 
ucts and  cost  of  production,  and  the  same  relation  should  be  maintained. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Glassmere,  Pa.;  American  Plate  Glass  Co., 
Kane,  Pa.;  Columbia  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Blairsville,  Pa.;  Federal  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Ottawa,  111.;  Heidenkamp  Mirror  Co.,  Springdale,  Pa.; 
Penn  American  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Alexandria,  Ind.;  Pittsburgh  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Pitssburgh,  Pa.;  Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Saginaw,  Mich.; 
St.  Louis  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Valley  Park,  Mo.;  Standard  Plate  Glass  Co., 
Butler,  Pa. 

JANUARY,  1913. 

THE  AUDIT  Co.  OF  NEW  YORK, 

New  York,  January  3,  1913. 
To  the  Committee  of  Plate  Glass  Manufacturers,  New  York  City. 

DEAR  SIRS:  Agreeably  to  your  request,  we  have  audited  the  books  and  accounts 
of  certain  plate-glass  manufacturers  for  the  two  years  ending  July  31,  1909,  and 
November  30,  1912. 


842 


TAEIFF  HEABINGS. 
PABAGRAPHS  101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 


The  average  sales  prices  obtained  for  the  various  sizes  and  the  costs  of  production 
we  find  to  be  as  follows: 


Year  to 
July  31,  1909, 
average  per 
square  foot. 

Year  to 
Nov.  30,  1912, 
average  per 
square  foot. 

Prices  from  net  sales: 

384  sqnarfi  innhes  and  iindnr        .......          ,        ,  ,    , 

Cents. 
16.01 

Cents. 
13,43 

384  square  inches  to  5  square  feet  

22.39 

21.45 

Over  5  square  feet  

29.97 

28.64 

Costs  of  production  before  adding  depreciation  

28.16 

23.98 

Add  depreciation  

5.55 

4.47 

Costs  after  depreciation  but  before  adding  Interest  on  bonds  and  capi- 
tal invested  

33.  71 

28.45 

We  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  average  results  form  a  true  showing  as  prepared 
from  the  books  of  the  companies  audited  by  us,  excepting  as  to  depreciation,  which 
we  have  carefully  estimated. 

Very  truly,  yours,  THE  AUDIT*  Co.  OP  NEW  YORK. 

A.  W.  DUNNING,  President. 
G.  A.  BOWERS,  Secretary. 

REPLY  BRIEF  SUBMITTED  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  AMERICAN  PLATE  GLASS  INDUSTRY. 

[Represented  by  the  following  companies:  Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Glassmere,  Pa.;  American  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Kane,  Pa.;  Columbia  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Blairsville,  Pa.:  Federal  Plate  Glass  Co..  Ottawa,  111.; 
Heidenkamp  Mirror  Co.,  Springdale,  Pa.;  Penii  American  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Alexandria,  Ind.;  Pittsburgh. 
Plate  Glass  Co.,  Pittsburgh.  Pa.:  Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Saginaw,  Mich.:  St.  Louis  Plate  Glass  Co., 
Valley  Park.  Mo.;  Standard  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Butler,  Pa.;  Edward  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Rossford,  Ohio; 
Kittanning  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Kittanning,  Pa.] 

To  the  honorable  Members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives: 

By  permission  of  your  committee  we  file  this  supplemental  brief  in  reply  to  the 
briefs  filed  by  Semon.  Bache  &  Co..  on  December  1.  1911  (at  least  bearing  that  date, 
though  perhaps  filed  later),  and  January  13,  1913,     In  the  interest  of  the  economy  of 
your  time,  it  will  be  necessary  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  of  these  misstatements. 
At  the  outset  it  should  be  stated  that  the  briefs  were  written  by  importers  either 
not  knowing  or  suppressing  the  facts,  who  naturally  view  the  matter  from  the  stand- 
point of  advancing  their  interests  through  creating  a  large  market  in  the  United  States 
for  European  products,  and  are  wholly  indifferent,  if  not  hostile,  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  American  manufacturer. 
We  wish  particularly  to  call  attention  to  two  features  of  their  brief: 

I.  That  the  Audit  Co..  of  New  York,  which  made  a  report  that  certain  of  the  com- 
panies it  had  examined  had  produced  little,  if  any.  earnings,  had  selected  those  com- 
panies with  a  view  of  being  able  to  make  such  a  report.     The  fact  is  wholly  misrepre- 
sented.    These  companies  are  among  the  most  modern  and  representative  of  the  whole 
industry;  and.  until  the  committee  indicated  no  desire  to  have  the  remaining  com- 
panies examined,  it  was  intended  that  the  Audit  Co.  should  make  a  complete  audit 
of  all  the  companies  engaged  in  this  industry.     That  offer  was  made  on  the  oral  argu- 
ment, and  still  holds  good. 

II.  The  assertion  to  the  effect,  that  the  foreign  plate  glass  convention  is  "not  a  trust 
at  all,"  is  sufliciently  contradicted  by  themselves  in  their  statement  in  the  same  para- 
graph that  the  convention  only  primarily  adjusts  production,  and  incidentally  fixes 
prices.     To  show  the  inaccuracy  of  this  statement,  and  the  real  scope  and  power  of  this 
foreign  trust,  we  append  in  original1  and  translation,  in  Exhibit  A  hereto  annexed, 
articles  fcpom  the  Action  Economique,  a  Belgian  publication,  of  December  land  8, 1912. 

The  novel  but  incidentally  criminal  course  suggested  in  the  importers'  brief  is  for 
the  American  manufacturer  to  retaliate  against  the  foreign  trust  by  itself  engaging  in 
what  in  this  country  would  be  a  conspiracy. 

The  foreign  trust  may  seem  of  little  significance  to  importers  inasmuch  as  it  is  their 
ally;  but  to  the  American  manufacturers  its  significance  is  of  vital  importance,  because 


1  Translation  only  printed. 


SCHEDULE   B.  843 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

it  is  a  legalized  organization  which  can  so  control  an  industry  and  dictate  prices  as  to 
enable  its  members  to  make  75  to  80  per  cent  a  year,  and  possesses  a  power  which,  if 
unfairly  favored  by  American  legislation,  must  inevitably  be  exercised  in  this  market 
to  the  disaster  of  the  home  industry,  even  now  struggling  to  keep  its  feet. 

Another  evidence  of  the  importers'  willingness  to  confuse  the  subject  and  make  it 
difficult  for  the  committee  to  clearly  comprehend  the  actual  conditions  existing  in 
this  industry  in  regard  to  importations,  is  that  their  briefs  do  not  show  the  division 
between  glass  in  which  the  American  manufacturers  compete  only  among  them- 
selves, and  glass  in  which  the  American  manufacturers  are  in  active  competition  not 
only  among  themselves,  but  with  the  foreign  producers. 

The  plate-glass  business  divides  itself  into  two  general  classes,  viz : 

First.  Glazing  quality  (the  kind  of  glass  used  for  windows),  with  regard  to  which 
there  is  the  keenest  and  most  active  domestic  competition,  and  which  forces  the 
manufacturers  to  sell  it  without  any  regard  to  the  rates  of  duty  imposed;  and, 

Second.  Glass  of  silvering  quality,  glass  of  selected  quality  and  sizes  for  special 
purposes,  with  which  the  American  manufacturers  are  now,  and  always  have  been, 
in  keen  competition  with  the  foreign  manufacturers.  The  imports,  no  matter  whether 
large  or  small,  for  the  last  15  or  20  years  have  been  almost  exclusively  of  this  character. 

Disregarding  this  fact,  the  importers,  when  they  compare  American  prices  with 
foreign  prices  and  the  existing  rates  of  duty,  show  only  the  prices  for  glazing  quality, 
as  to  which  we  are  not  in  competition  with  the  foreigner,  and  give  you  the  impression 
that  this  is  the  only  kind  of  glass  the  American  manufacturers  make,  suppressing  the 
fact  as  to  the  prices  for  silvering  and  selected  qualities  and  special  sizes,  with  which 
we  are  in  active  competition  with  the  foreigners.  Four  years  ago,  when  these  importers 
were  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  they  stated  that  the  American  manu- 
facturers could  not  produce  silvering  and  selected  qualities  and  that  they  were  not, 
therefore,  entitled  to  protection  thereon,  the  inference  being  that  if  we  were  able  to 
make  silvering  quality,  and  were  therefore  actually  in  competition  with  the  foreign 
manufacturers,  we  might  be  entitled  to  proper  protection.  Mr.  Goertner,  the  im- 
porters' representative  at  that  time,  made  the  following  statement  (p.  1125,  Vol.  II, 
Tariff  Hearings  60th  Cong.): 

"  The  glass  now  imported  is  imported  because  it  is  especially  suitable  for  the  pur- 
poses. It  is  not  really  in  direct  competition  with  American  glass." 

Now  that  it  has  been  conclusively  shown  that  the  American  manufacturers  are  able 
to  supply  the  fine  qualities  required,  the  importers  carefully  fail  to  state  the  fact  that 
while  glazing  quality  is  selling  at  low  prices  the  American  manufacturers  are  in  active 
competition  with  the  foreigners  on  all  silvering  and  selected  qualities  and  special 
sizes,  which  represent  a  very  important  part  of  the  business. 

It  has  been  intimated  that  a  tariff  on  plate  glass  should  be  on  a  scale  corresponding 
to  the  large  number  of  gradations  in  the  quality,  but  this  is  impracticable  from  an 
administration  standpoint.  The  distinction  of  grades  is  a  matter  of  expert  judgment, 
made  under  special  conditions,  requiring  such  a  large  amount  of  space  that  it  would  be 
impracticable  in  the  Government  warehouses,  and  every  sheet  of  glass  imported  would 
have  to  be  separately  inspected.  A  tariff  based  on  quality  would  be  productive  of 
endless  disagreement  and  frauds. 

As  proof  of  this  statement,  we  quote  Mr.  Goertner  (Hearings  of  Nov.  23.  1908,  p. 
1131): 

"Mr.  UNDERWOOD.  Can  you  describe  to  the  reporter  the  distinction  technically 
between  these  two  classes  of  glass  (silvering  quality  and  glazing  quality)  so  that  the 
committee  can  technically  distinguish  it? 

"Mr.  GOERTNER.  It  could  not  be  described  to  anybody,  Mr.  Underwood.  I  could 
not  describe  it  to  another  man  in  the  trade;  you  can  only  point  it  out  when  the  two 
classes  are  in  front  of  you.  It  is  the  most  intangible  proposition  in  the  world;  it  is  a 
matter  of  judgment." 

In  answer  to  the  importers'  reference  to  the  large  increase  in  the  production  of 
what  is  ironically  characterized  as  "a  languishing  industry,"  we  wish  to  say  that 
this  increase  in  production  was  caused  primarily  by  the  enormous  increase  in  the  con- 
sumption of  the  country,  and  incidentally  by  the  fact  that  once  embarked  in  busi- 
ness every  manufacturer  is  compelled  to  make  every  possible  effort  to  reduce  his 
costs  and  "keep  in  line  with  progressive  conditions,  and  volume  of  output  is  always 
one  of  the  principal  determining  factors  in  reducing  costs.  To  accomplish  this,  the 
manufacturers  in  this  country  have  been  compelled  to  put  in  large  amounts  of  new 
money  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  their  equipment  up  to  date;  and  while  these  addi- 
tional investments  have  not  been  profitable  to  the  extent  that  investments  normally 
should  be,  they  have  been  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  escape  dry  rot  and  the 
ruin  which  otherwise  would  have  inevitably  overtaken  them. 


844  TAKUT  HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

The  importers  claim  that  the  present  rates  of  duty  are  dangerous  because  they  put  a 
premium  upon  the  promotion  of  trade  combinations.  This  statement  is  at  least  lack- 
ing in  seriousness,  for,  if  the  manufacturers  were  ever  going  to  combine  for  the  purpose 
of  advancing  their  own  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  consuming  public,  they  would 
have  done  so.  To-day,  with  the  late  interpretation  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
antitrust  acts,  the  suggestion  of  such  a  combination  is  preposterous.  The  plate-glass 
manufacturers  as  a  whole  have  made  very  little  money  for  the  past  10  years;  most  of 
them  have  paid  no  dividends  whatever,  and  the  dividends  have  been  totally  inade- 
for  any  normal  business  condition;  and  of  all  this  the  public  has  been  reaping  its 
advantage. 

The  importers  say  the  American  manufacturers  only  get  20  or  21  cents  a  foot,  while 
in  other  parts  of  their  brief  they  quote  domestic  prices  which  they  say  average  from  30 
to  41  cents  per  square  foot.  These  contradictory  statements  need  no  comment,  except 
that  the  American  manufacturers  readily  admit  that  the  selling  prices  have  -een 
altogether  too  low — too  low,  in  fact,  to  leave  anything  for  depreciation,  and  frequently 
nothing  for  overhead  charges;  but  there  never  has  been  any  average  selling  price  for 
any  American  factory  nearly  as  low  as  the  figure  of  20  to  21  cents. 

The  importers  claim  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  verify  the  foreign  cost  which  they 
give  (14.79  cents),  as  it  was  practically  admitted  by  the  plate-glass  manufacturers  at 
the  hearings  in  the  Sixtieth  Congress.  They  ignore  entirely  the  fact  that,  by  the 
introduction  of  the  Lehr,  an  American  device,  it  should  be  remembered,  and  other 
important  improvements  in  methods  of  grinding  and  polishing,  the  foreigners  have 
reduced  their  cost  3  to  4  cents  per  foot  in  the  past  four  years.  The  comparative  cost 
sheets  submitted  by  the  importers  are  ingenious  only  as  they  deal  in  invention  and 
not  in  facts.  For  example:  It  is  the  cost  sheet  of  an  old  type  of  kiln  factory  now 
obsolete;  it  omits  altogether  an  important  item  of  cost — the  breakage  and  shrinkage 
incident  to  manufacture.  The  shrinkage  charge  in  connection  with  general  expendi- 
ture is  not  sufficient  to  cover  that  incident  to  cutting  orders,  and  can  not  by  any  pre- 
tense cover  the  shrinkage  incident  to  manufacture;  it  charges  soda  ash  at  $26  per  ton, 
a  price  that  was  current  20  years  ago.  The  present  price  is  about  half  that  figure. 
These  facts,  which  could  be  largely  added  to,  if  it  were  necessary  to  give  cumulative 
evidence  of  what  we  say  as  to  the  methods  pursued  in  the  preparation  of  their  briefs, 
are  all  unqualifiedly  contradicted  by  The  Audit  Co.  as  well  as  by  the  consular  reports. 
We  respectfully  submit  that  the  committee  should  not  be  called  upon  to  waste  its 
valuable  time  on  inferences  and  guesses,  when  they  are  afforded  every  opportunity  to 
examine  and  ascertain  the  facts  and  conditions  as  they  exist. 

The  importers  say  that  the  American  public  have  paid  heavily  for  the  excessive 
protection  given  to  the  plate-glass  industry,  and  refer  to  various  fluctuations  in  prices. 

This  statement  is  answered  in  part  by  the  fact  that  the  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of 
plate  glass  have  on  the  whole  in  recent  years  been  less  than  in  most  other  commodities; 
that  the  high  prices  have  been  very  brief  in  their  duration,  due  to  temporary  shortages 
of  production  or  excessive  demand.  But  the  best  answer  to  unsupported  and  inac- 
curate assertions  is  the  fact  that  the  industry  has  made  so  little  money  during  the 
period  in  question,  while,  as  we  have  shown  the  committee,  there  has  been  a  gradual 
and  progressive  decrease  in  the  cost  of  the  product  to  the  consumer. 

The  importers  also  give  us  a  further  evidence  of  the  method  adopted  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  their  briefs: 

"That  the  ink  was  hardly  dry  on  that  document  (the  Payne-Aldrich  bill)  when  new 
prices,  as  shown  on  page  12.  were  issued." 

This  is  a  wholly  indefensible  statement,  inasmuch  as  the  impression  is  sought  to  be 
conveyed  that  the  prices  were  advanced  as  the  outgrowth  of  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  of  the  11  prices  shown.  8  were  within  the  range  in  which  the  duty 
was  reduced  from  35  to  22. V  cents  by  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill,  1  was  for  the  5  to  10  foot 
bracket,  which  in  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill  remained  unchanged,  and  only  2  were  within 
the  range  of  the  two  brackets,  the  5  square  feet  and  under,  upon  which  the  very  slight 
increase  in  rates  was  made. 

Another  misleading  statement  is  with  regard  to  the  Belgian  manufacturers  having 
no  foreign  market  in  which  to  dump  for  the  reason  that  90  per  cent  of  their  product 
goes  into  foreign  markets.  The  brief  omits  to  say  that  practically  all  of  this  90  per  cent 
of  glass  exported  goes  into  markets  other  than  the  United  States,  which  they  abso- 
lutely control  and  in  which  they  maintain  fictitiously  high  prices,  due  to  the  operations 
of  their  syndicate. 

While  they  are  shipping  a  comparatively  small  part  of  the  90  per  cent  to  the  American 
market  they  could,  by  operating  their  plants  to  full  capacity,  largely  increase  this 
output,  as  the  articles  from  the  Action  Economique  clearly  show,  and  dump  their  sur- 


SCHEDULE  B.  845 

P  ABA  GRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

plus  into  this  country  at  cost  without  in  any  wise  affecting  the  export  trade  they  now 
control,  and  upon  wnich  they  make  a  very  large  profit.  The  increase  in  production 
thus  made  possible  will  also  enable  then  to  largely  reduce  their  cost  and  further  increase 
their  inflated  profits,  which  now  run  as  high  as  83  per  cent  per  annum. 

There  ought  certainly  not  to  be,  if  the  prosperity  of  American  industry  is  to  be 
regarded,  any  further  invitation  to  commit  this  wrong. 

Having  therefore  conclusively  shown  to  the  committee—^ 

I.  That  the  American  industry  is  in  a  highly  competitive  condition,  first,  with 
regard  to  glass  for  glazing  purposes  among  themselves,  and,  second,  that  they  are  in 
active  competition  not  only  among  themselves  but  with  the  importers  under  the 
existing  rates  of  duty  with  regard  to  glass  for  mirror  purposes  and  other  selected  require- 
ments; 

II.  That  under  this  existing  state  of  competition  the  profits  realized  by  the  manu- 
facturers are  altogether  too  meager  for  the  healthy  perpetuation  of  any  industry; 

III.  That,  according  to  the  Audit  and  consular  reports,  the  cost  of  foreign  produc- 
tion and  the  home  cost  of  production  is  scarcely  equalized  and  allowed  for  by  the 
present  tariff; 

IV.  That  this  foreign  cost  would  be  appreciably  lower  if  the  foreign  factories  were 
running  full  and  not  curtailing  production  by  the  arbitrary,  dictatorial  operations  of 
the  foreign  trust;  and 

V.  That  no  trust  or  combination  or  understanding  exists  among  American  manu- 
facturers as  to  the  output  or  prices  of  product,  or  otherwise,  but  that  the  foreign  trade 
is  completely  in  the  hands  of  the  trust  and  that  there  is  in  this  trust  a  real  menace  to 
the  American  industry  if  conditions  are  made  to  favor  its  operation  in  this  market; 
we  submit  that  no  reduction  in  the  present  rates  of  duty  can  be  justified. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Glassmere,  Pa.;  American  Plate  Glass  Co., 
Kane,  Pa.;  Columbia  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Blairsville,  Pa.;  Federal  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Ottawa,  111.;  Heidenkamp  Mirror  Co.,  Springdale,  Pa.; 
Penn  American  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Alexandria,  Ind.;  Pittsburgh  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Saginaw,  Mich.; 
St.  Louis  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Valley  Park,  Mo.;  Standard  Plate  Glass  Co., 
Butler,  Pa.;  Edward  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Rossford,  Ohio;  Kittanning 
Plate  Glass  Co.,  Kittanning,  Pa. 

January  30,  1913. 

Filed  by  Harrison  Osborne,  34  Nassau  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

EXHIBIT  A. 
[From  the  Action  Eeonomique,  Dec.  1,  1912.] 

INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  PLATE  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS — THE  CONDITIONS  OP 
ITS  RENEWAL — THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  A  COMMERCIAL  AND  CONTINENTAL  UNION  OP 
PLATE  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS — THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  UNION. 

We  think  it  may  be  interesting  to  give  some  details  concerning  the  conditions  under 
which  the  International  Convention  of  Plate  Glass  Manufacturers  was  renewed. 

This  organization,  as  is  known,  began  to  exist  really  on  the  17th  of  August,  1904, 
and  ended  on  the  17th  of  August,  1909;  it  was  renewed  about  two  years  before  this  last 
date  for  a  period  of  five  years,  and  on  the  15th  of  November  last  it  was  decided  to  again 
extend  it;  but  this  time  for  a  period  of  10  years  beginning  with  the  expiration  of  the 
agreements,  viz,  the  17th  of  August,  1914,  so  as  to  end  it  on  the  17th  of  August,  1924. 
The  concluded  agreements  embrace  practically  the  whole  of  the  European  factories 
with  the  exception  of  the  Societe  des  Glaces  de  Courcelles  and  the  firm  of  Pilkington 
Bros,  at  St.  Helens  (England).  The  following  corporations  are  members  of  the  syn- 
dicate : 

First.  Manufactures  de  Glaces  et  Produits  Chimiques  de  St.  Gobain,  at  Paris  (fac- 
tories at  St.  Gobain,  Chaumy,  Cirey,  Montlucon,  Mannheim,  Stolberg,  Pise,  and 
Franiere). 

Second.  Nouvelle  Societe  des  Glaceries  Ne'erlandaises,  at  Sas  de  Gand  (Netherlands. 

Third.  Schlesische  Spiegel  Manufactur  Carl  von  Tielsch,  at  Altwasser  (Germany). 

Fourth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  de  Glaces  Nationales  Beiges,  at  St.  Roch  Auvelais. 

Fifth.  Societe  Anonyme  Glacerie  Germania,  at  Porz  Urbach  (Cologne),  principal 
office  at  St.  Roch  Auvelais. 


846  TABUT   HEAEINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS. 

Sixth.  Socie"t6  Anonyme  de  Glaces  de  Ste.  Marie  d'Oignies,  at  Aiseau. 

Seventh.  Compagnie  de  Floreffe,  at  Floreffe. 

Eighth.  Soci6t6  Anonyme  des  Glaces  de  Moustier-sur-Sambre,  at  Moustier-sur- 
Sambre. 

Ninth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  dea  Glaces  de  Auvelais,  at  Auvelais. 

Tenth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  des  Glaces  de  Charleroi,  at  Roux. 

Eleventh.  Compagnies  re^unies  des  Glaces  et  Verres  sp^ciaux  du  Nord  de  la  France, 
at  Jeumont  (a  corporation  formed  by  the  fusion  of  the  Compagnie  des  Glaces  at  Verres 
spe^ciaux  de  France  at  Boussois  ana  of  the  Compagnie  des  Glaces  et  Verres  sp£ciaux 
du  Nord,  at  Jeumont). 

Twelfth.  Soci6t6  Anonyme  des  Verreries  et  Manufacture  des  Glaces  d'Aniche,  at 
Aniche  (North). 

Thirteenth.  Soci&e'  Anonyme  des  Glaceries  et  Charbonnages  de  Boheme,  at  Stan- 
kau  (Bohemia),  principal  office  at  Brussels. 

Fourteenth.  Socie'te  Anonyme  Glas-und  Spiegel  Manufactur,  at  Schalke  (West- 
phalia). 

Fifteenth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  Herzogenrather-Spiegelglas  und  Spiegelfabrik,  at 
Herzogenrath  (Germany). 

Sixteenth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  Rheinische  Spiegelglasfabrik,  at  Eckamp,  near 
Ratingen  (Germany). 

Seventeenth.  Socie'te'  Anonyme  Deutsche  Spiegelglas  A.  G.,  at  Freden  (Hanover). 

The  convention  is,  in  fact,  an  organization  naving  as  its  object  to  establish  prices 
and  sale  conditions  of  plate  glass,  polished  and  unpolished,  plain  or  silvered,  on  the 
different  markets.  All  the  factories  of  the  convention,  that  is  to  say,  all  the  European 
plate-glass  factories  (with  the  exception  of  Courcelles  and  Pilkington,  with  the  reserva- 
tion which  we  shall  give  later),  have  agreed  between  themselves  to  respect  the  prices 
and  sale  conditions  as  fixed  by  the  convention,  and  not  to  evade  them  in  any  way, 
under  penalty  of  heavy  fines,  either  favoring  the  buyer  by  taking  all  the  breakage 
risks  or  by  guaranteeing  for  each  delivery  a  premium  for  breakage  if  it  should  reach 
a  certain  percentage. 

The  convention  desiring  to  bring  production  in  direct  relation  to  consumption, 
each  factory  must  shut  down  as  many  days  per  quarter  that  it  is  directed. 

Every  plate-glass  factory,  whether  German,  Belgian,  French,  or  Austrian,  may 
sell  on  all  the  markets  without  any  distinction  whatsoever,  in  Belgium,  Holland, 
England,  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  in  the  Balkans,  in  Italy,  Spain,  Extreme 
Orient,  Orient,  Russia,  Poland,  Finland,  Scandinavia,  South  America,  United 
States  of  America,  Canada,  and  Africa.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  contracting  firm 
should  respect  the  conditions  and  prices  as  fixed  by  the  convention.  Each  factory 
has,  moreover,  its  own  agent  in  practically  every  market. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  competition  exists  between  the  factories  which  are  members 
of  the  convention;  but  it  is  simply  limited  to  the  quality  of  glass  which  is  furnished, 
the  prompt  delivery,  the  care  taken  in  packing,  and  other  secondary  details. 

The  Pilkington  and  Courcelles  factories  have  themselves  given  up  price  competition 
with  the  factories  of  the  convention.  These  two  manufacturers,  although  not  bound 
by  any  understanding,  nevertheless  observe  the  prices  of  the  syndicate,  and,  in  fact, 
their  competition  does  not  go  beyond  that  which  is  authorized  between  the  affiliated 
factories. 

Had  the  syndicate  not  been  renewed  it  would  have  resulted  to  the  enormous  preju- 
dice of  the  interests  of  the  plate-glass  industry.  There  would  in  fact  have  been  a 
return  to  the  situation  prevailing  before  1904.  At  that  time  the  plate-glass  industry 
was  going  through  a  very  acute  crisis.  Through  excessive  competition,  prices  had 
fallen  in  considerable  proportion,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  rise  in  price  of  the  raw 
materials  influenced  unfavorably  the  cost  price.  Under  these  conditions,  the  future 
of  this  industry  seemed  very  dark,  and  though  some  strong  companies  could  face 
without  fear  a  price  war,  the  situation  was  not  the  same  for  the  other  companies, 
especially  for  those  whose  products  are  not  of  the  first  quality. 

One  may  say  that  under  these  conditions,  without  any  exaggeration,  the  non- 
renewal  of  the  convention  would  have  been  a  disaster  for  the  great  majority  of  the 
factories. 

It  had  lately  been  reported  that  the  German  syndicate  of  plate-glass  manufacturers 
and  the  international  syndicate  had  decided  to  extend  their  agreement  for  a  new 
period  of  10  years. 

The  information  in  this  shape  is  not  quite  exact,  and  the  reason  why  is  this: 

The  Verband  Deutscher  Spiepelfabriken  is  the  syndicate  of  plate-glass  manu- 
facturers which  regulates  the  market  of  the  German  Confederation,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  prices  and  sale  conditions.  But  the  German  factories  have  joined  the  con- 


SCHEDULE  B.  847 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

vention,  and  the  latter  has  adopted  for  the  sale  in  Germany  the  conditions  of  the 
verband.  There  has,  therefore,  not  been,  and  there  could  not  have  been,  a  renewal  of 
the  understanding,  so  to  speak,  between  the  verband  and  the  convention,  because  in 
fact  there  is  no  special  understanding  between  these  two  organizations,  which  are 
working  together.  The  renewal  of  the  convention  implied  that  of  this  understanding. 
In  fact,  the  verband  is  a  division  of  the  convention  which  each  of  its  members  has 
joined. 

A  new  event  has  marked  this  year  the  negotiations  which  have  taken  place  con- 
cerning the  renewal  of  the  International  Convention  of  Plate  Glass  Manufacturers. 
There  is  under  consideration  the  draft  of  a  constitution  of  an  actual  plate-glass  trust 
which  shall  be  named  1' Union  Internationale  et  Commerciale  des  Glaceries.  This 
project  will  not  be  long  delayed.  A  plan  for  the  organization  of  this  union  is  at  present 
submitted  for  the  definite  approval  of  the  interested  parties. 

L'TJnion  Internationale  et  Commerciale  des  Glaceries  will  centralize  at  Brussels, 
all  the  commercial  services  of  the  plate-glass  companies,  thus  forming,  as  we  said,  a 
genuine  trust,  a  trust  which  will  control  all  the  branches  interested  in  the  plate-glass 
industry,  because  the  new  organization  makes  provision  in  its  by-laws  for  being  a  party 
to  the  production  of  raw  materials,  of  shipping  companies,  etc. 

Contrary  to  what  might  be  supposed,  1' Union  Internationale  et  Commerciale  des 
Glaceries  is  not  intended  to  replace  the  International  Convention  of  Plate  Glass  Man- 
ufacturers. The  renewal  of  the  latter  has  brought  about  the  foundation  of  the  union. 
The  union  will  act  as  an  exporter  which  will  buy  the  production  of  all  the  factories, 
in  accordance  with  its  needs;  that  is,  the  orders  received  at  a  price  fixed  per  square 
meter,  and  resell  this  production  at  price  and  conditions  fixed  by  the  convention. 

The  capital  of  the  union  will  be  furnished  by  the  factories  of  the  convention,  which 
will  pay  into  the  corporation  to  be  formed  a  part  of  their  own  capital. 

This  proposition  originates  from  Mr.  Henin,  administrator  of  the  plate-glass  factories 
of  Charleroi,  at  Roux.  It  is,  as  one  may  see,  tremendous,  and  is  bound  to  strengthen 
still  further  the  position  of  the  plate-glass  industry,  and  the  union  among  the  members 
of  the  syndicate. 

A.  MAUREY. 


[From  the  Action  Economique,  Dec.  8,  1812.] 

We  have  given  in  the  last  number  of  the  Action  Economique  some  information 
concerning  the  renewal  of  the  International  Convention  of  Plate  Glass  Manufacturers. 

We  think  it  may  be  useful  to  complete  this  with  more  precision. 

The  principal  object  of  the  convention,  as  we  said  before,  is  to  put  production  in 
direct  relation  to  consumption,  so  as  to  give  stability  to  the  prices  and  avoid  an  over- 
production, injurious  to  every  industry.  The  production  of  the  factories  is,  therefore, 
limited  by  the  imposition  of  a  certain  shutdown.  If,  for  example,  a  shutdown  of 
45  per  cent  is  decreed,  the  factory  would  only  be  allowed  to  produce  55  per  cent  of  its 
productive  capacity. 

How  is  the  control  of  this  shutdown  process  effected?  In  the  following  way:  The 
factories  can  produce  at  will  any  amount  of  rough  plate  glass;  but  as  soon  as  it  is  sub- 
jected to  the  finishing  process  the  control  by  way  of  shutdown  interferes.  The 
grinding  and  polishing  apparatus  are  sealed  for  the  number  of  days  or  hours  during 
which  the  shutdown  is  decided  for  each  period  of  three  months. 

New  agreements  have  been  talked  about  in  view  of  an  understanding  on  the  limita- 
tion of  the  respective  productions  between  the  convention  and  the  famous  English 
Pilkington  Co.  which,  as  is  true  of  theCourcellesCo.,isnotamember  of  the  convention, 
but  respects  the  prices  fixed  by  it.  It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  only  difference, 
or  at  least  the  most  important  one  with  the  other  affiliated  factories,  is  that  the  English 
Co.  does  not  pay  any  attention  to  the  special  conditions  of  each  market  (for  example, 
the  sizes  intended  for  mirrors  sold  in  qualities  used  for  windows).  Therefore,  there 
has  not  been,  and  there  could  not  have  been,  negotiations  in  view  of  a  new  agreement 
between  the  Pilkington  Co.  and  the  convention,  the  existing  agreements  renewing 
themselves  automatically  at  the  same  time  as  the  convention  itself.  The  situation, 
in  this  direction,  is  identical  with  that  of  the  verband  for  Germany,  and  it  is,  in  fact, 
that  of  the  French  group.  In  other  words,  there  are  three  protected  markets,  viz. 
France,  Germany,  and  England,  which  are  governed  by  their  own  federation  of 
manufacturers  under  the  control  of  the  convention. 

It  ifl  nevertheless  true  that  efforts  are  being  made  to  obtain  from  the  Pilkington 
Co.  a  limitation  of  its  production,  and  it  is  precisely  in  view  of  this  that  the  new 


848  TAEIFF   HEAKINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    101-103— PLATE   GLASS. 

organization  1'  Union  des  Glaceries,  whose  organization  we  have  referred  to,  will  be 
able  to  be  of  service. 

We  can  already,  in  the  most  formal  fashion,  affirm  this:  The  business  activity  of 
1'  Union  Internationale  et  Commerciale  des  Glaceries  (International  and  not  Conti- 
nental) is  only  a  question  of  three  or  four  months. 

The  constitution  of  this  organization  is  to-day  a  definite  one.  Certain  manufac- 
turers, it  is  true,  were  hesitating  to  join  the  union  before  the  renewal  of  the  conven- 
tion; but  the  fact  itself  of  this  renewal  for  a  period  of  10  years  has  done  away  with  this. 
Alone,  the  Glaceries  Nationales  Beiges  have  not  yet  given  their  assent,  but  one  may 
predict  that  it  will  not  be  long  before  they  join,  their  holding  aloof  being  without 
reason. 

The  union  will  be,  as  we  have  already  said,  a  genuine  trust.  It  will  concentrate 
the  production  of  all  the  factories  and  will  buy  it  in  toto  at  a  price  per  square  meter 
fixed  by  the  union  itself,  the  latter  being  the  representative  of  all  the  plate  glass 
factories.  Rebates  will  naturally  be  granted  to  the  different  factories  according  to 
the  sale  prices. 

The  principal  advantage  of  the  union  will  be  in  fact  the  complete  suppression  of 
competition.  The  present  competition  on  the  quality  of  glass  and  the  quality  of 
the  packing  will  be  itself  completely  done  away  with.  There  will  be  no  more  glass 
of  Floreffe,  or  Charleroi,  or  Auvelais;  there  will  only  be  union  glass.  The  distinction 
will  have  enormous  consequences,  especially  from  the  point  of  view  of  modifications 
which  will  have  to  be  made  in  the  organization  of  sales  on  foreign  markets,  where 
the  factories  all  have  actually  their  own  agents. 

We  may  add:  The  capital  of  1'  Union  Commerciale  et  Internationale  des  Glaceries 
will  be  of  2,000,000  francs. 

A.M. 

NOTE. — The  sales  corporation  above  referred  to — which  is  the  final  step  taken  by 
the  trust  to  wholly  dominate  the  foreign  industry — was  formally  incorporated  at 
Brussels  in  December,  1912,  under  the  name  of  Union  Commerciale  Con tinentale. 

BRIEF    OF    SEMON    BACHE    &  CO.  EELATIVE  TO  ROUGH  PLATE 

GLASS. 

PARAGRAPH  101. 

NEW  YORK,  January  25,  1913. 
THE  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  duties  in  this  paragraph  are  ostensibly  levied  on  a  square-foot 
basis,  but  the  provision  that  any  excess  over  a  weight  of  1  pound  per  square  foot  shall 
be  dutiable  at  the  same  rate  practically  converts  the  rates  to  a  weight  basis,  as  none  of 
the  glass  weighs  as  little  as  1  pound  to  the  foot;  that  is,  the  rates  of  f  cent,  1£  cents,  and 
If  cents  per  square  foot  are  actual  rates  of  f  cent,  1^  cents,  and  If  cents  per  pound. 

Samples  of  the  commoner  varieties  of  the  material  covered  by  this  paragraph  are 
sent  herewith.  The  process  of  manufacture  is  very  simple.  The  molten  metal  is 
ladled  out  of  the  melting  pot  or  tank  and  poured  on  an  iron  casting  table  from  2  to  4 
feet  wide  and  about  12  feet  long  and  a  roller  is  then  run  over  it.  A  plain  casting  table 
is  used  for  the  ordinary  rough  glass.  The  ribbed  glass  and  the  various  patterns  shown 
by  the  samples  are  produced  by  cutting  the  ribs  or  the  patterns  in  the  surface  of  the 
table.  In  the  case  of  wire  <dass,  the  wire  is  forced  into  the  glass  during  the  rolling 
process.  Xo  grinding  or  polishing  of  any  sort  is  done  and  the  operation  above  described 
rovers  the  entire  manufacturing  process  with  the  exception  of  the  annealing.  In 
short,  compared  with  other  varieties  of  glass,  the  proportion  of  the  labor  cost  to  the 
total  cost  of  the  product  is  very  small,  the  principal  items  of  cost  being  the  melting 
materials  and  the  fuel,  both  of  which  are  cheaper  here  than  in  Europe. 

The  bulk  of  this  glass  is  sold  by  the  manufacturers  in  the  original  stock  sheets  just 
as  they  come  from  the  casting  table,  although  there  is  a  considerable  volume  of  sales 
of  glass  cut  to  the  exact  sizes  required.  The  product  is  so  cheap  that  the  sizes  do  not 
affect  the  price,  stock  sheets  being  sold  at  a  uniform  price  per  square  foot  regardless  of 
size,  and  glass  cut  to  size  is  also  usually  sold  at  a  uniform  price  enough  higher  than  the 
stock  shoots  to  cover  the  cost  of  cutting,  waste,  etc.;  that  is,  unlike  plate  glass,  window 
glass,  and  practically  all  other  varieties  of  glass,  the  price  per  square  foot  has  no  rela- 
tionship to  the  size,  small  sizes  and  large  sizes  being  sold  at  the  same  price. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


849 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

The  duties  levied  under  this  paragraph  are  not  only  higher  than  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion, which  is  about  2  cents  per  square  foot  for  glass  J  inch  in  thickness,  but  are  in 
many  cases  higher  than  the  manufacturers'  selling  prices.  The  table  hereunder  shows 
the  American  manufacturers'  selling  prices  for  a  long  period,  in  fact  for  several  years 
prior  to  the  fall  of  1912,  and  also  the  duty  on  the  imported  glass. 


Weight 
per 
square 
foot. 

Selling 
price 
per 
square 
foot. 

Duty 
per 
square 
foot. 

Size. 

J  inch  rough  or  ribbed.  

Pounds. 
1} 

Cents. 

z 

Cents. 
3.06 
2.19 

Above  24  by  30. 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30. 

ft  inch  rough  or  ribbed  .     

2| 

3 

1.31 
4.59 
3.28 

Up  to  16  by  24. 
Above  24  by  30. 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30. 

3} 

4} 

1.96 
6.12 
4.38 

Up  to  16  by  24. 
Above  24  by  30. 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30. 

J  inch  pattern  glass,  etc  

If 

4 

2.62 
3.06 
2.19 

Up  to  16  by  24. 
Above  24  by  30. 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30. 

J  inch  rough  ribbed  or  ornamental  wire  glass  

31 

8 

1.31 
6.12 
4.38 
2.62 

Up  to  16  by  24. 
Above  24  by  30. 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30. 
Up  to  16  by  24. 

All  the  above  prices  are  for  original  stock  sheets  and  comparison  should,  of  course, 
be  made  with  the  highest  duty  rates  which  apply  to  these  sizes. 

The  manufacturers'  present  selling  prices  are  a  cent  or  two  higher  than  the  above, 
which  apparently  does  not  amount  to  much  but  is  the  equivalent  of  20  per  cent  to 
35  per  cent,  figured  on  a  percentage  basis. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  glass  is  probably  made  cheaper  in  the  United  States  than 
anywhere  else  in  the  world.  The  manufacturers  have  been  for  years  exporting  con- 
siderable quantities  to  Canada,  where  they  are  able  to  compete  successfully  not  only 
with  European  manufacturers  in  general,  but  even  with  the  English  manufacturers, 
who  enjoy  a  preferential  tariff  in  Canada. 

The  importation  into  this  country  is  trifling  and  consists  almost  entirely  of  special 
ornamental  patterns.  Occasionally  when  a  European  manufacturer  gets  out  a  desir- 
able and  unique  design  of  ornamental  glass  there  is  a  little  importation  for  a  short 
time,  but  the  design  is  usually  copied  promptly  and  the  importation  ceases  forthwith. 

In  short,  the  situation  is  about  the  same  as  in  other  varieties  of  American  glass,  the 
tariff  rates  being  in  many  cases  higher  than  the  manufacturers'  selling  prices  and 
higher  than  the  foreign  cost  of  the  same  variety  of  glass.  Usually  there  is  sufficient 
competition  among  the  American  manufacturers  to  keep  the  selling  price  down  to  a 
reasonable  figure;  in  fact  to  the  best  of  our  recollection  they  have  never  taken  full 
advantage  of  the  protection  they  enjoy.  A  radical  reduction  in  the  present  rates 
should  be  made,  however,  in  order  to  make  foreign  competition  at  least  possible.  It 
is  also  probable  that  with  lower  rates  in  effect  the  occasional  importation  of  European 
designs  of  ornamental  glass  would  become  more  frequent  and  the  Government  reve- 
nues benefited  accordingly. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

SEMON  BACHE  &  Co., 
F.  J.  GOERTNER, 

Sales  Manager. 
PARAGRAPH  102. 

NEW  YORK,  January  13,  191S. 
The  COMMITTEE  ox  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  beg  to  confirm  our  statement  of  December  1,  1911  (copy  attached), 
as  an  accurate  representation  of  existing  conditions  excepting  regarding  the  selling  price 
of  American  plate  glass.  Beginning  in  April,  1912,  a  gradual  advance  in  the  manu- 
facturers' selling  prices  has  taken  place.  To-day's  prices  approximate  those  of  Au- 
gust 19,  1909  (see  attached  pamphlet).  These,  however,  may  be  described  as  official 


78959°  —  VOL  1—13- 


-54 


850  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

rather  than  actual  prices.  A  large  proportion  of  the  glass  now  being  shipped  by  the 
manufacturers  is  against  old  contracts  at  the  prices  existing  in  the  fall  of  1911. 

We  also  insert  statistics  of  domestic  production  and  importation  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  July  1,  1912.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  importations  are  only  2  per  cent 
of  the  domestic  production. 

The  statement  of  the  manufacturers  submitted  by  Mr.  Auerbach  on  January  8  last 
also  deserves  mention  on  two  or  three  points.  All  references  are  to  print  No.  3,  tariff 
hearings,  January  8,  1913. 

The  American  production  to-day  is  given  as  60,000,000  square  feet  annually.  In 
1909  it  was  47,000,000  square  feet.  An  increase  of  over  25  per  cent  in  three  years  ia 
not  bad  for  an  industry  which  is  described  by  its  members  as  being  almost  on  the 
rocks  through  inadequate  protection. 

Freights. — Please  see  page  —  of  the  attached  pamphlet,  which  gives  the  actual 
facts.  New  Orleans  is  almost  the  only  point  in  the  United  States  to  which  foreign 
plate  glass  can  be  shipped  cheaper  than  the  domestic  article;  that  is,  while  it  is  true 
that  low  rates  are  obtainable  from  Antwerp  to  the  Pacific  coast,  they  are  by  all-water 
routes,  the  time  required  for  transportation  being  from  three  to  six  months,  and  are 
not  available  for  the  average  buyer. 

The  manufacturers'  statement  confirms  ours  as  to  the  average  cost  of  the  American 
production  of  polished  plate.  The  report  of  the  Audit  Co.  (p.  458)  is  based  upon  the 
examination  of  "certain"  factories.  As  the  Audit  Co.'s  report  was  secured  for  the 
purpose  of  fortifying  an  argument  based  on  the  alleged  high  cost  of  American  plate 
glass,  it  is  a  reasonable  conclusion  that  the  factories  selected  for  the  examination 
the  least  efficient  factories— those  showing  the  highest  costs. 

The  result  of  the  examination  is  a  maximum  cost  of  23.98  cents  per  square  foot, 
about  5  cents  higher  than  the  average  cost  as  stated  by  us.  But  this  cost  of  23.98  cents 
includes  everything  except  depreciation  and  interest  on  investment.  It  included 
general  office  expense,  selling  expense,  packing  charges,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  not 
included  in  our  statement  and  which  amount  to  2  or  3  cents  per  square  foot. 

Boiled  down,  the  manufacturers'  statement  means  that  there  are  "certain"  ineffi- 
cient plants  whose  costs  are  about  10  or  15  per  cent  higher  than  our  statement  of  the 
general  average  cost. 

This  Audit  Co.'s  statement  yields  further  remarkable  results.  It  shows  that  these 
factories  sold  their  product  in  1912  at  the  following  average  prices:  Sizes  up  to  384 
square  inches,  13.43  cents  per  square  foot;  sizes  exceeding  384  and  not  exceeding  720 
inches,  21.45  cents  per  square  foot;  sizes  over  720  square  inches,  28.64  cents  per  square 
foot. 

The  manufacturers  claim  (p.  456)  that  the  low  prices  of  the  first  two  classifications 
(small  sizes)  are  due  to  inadequate  protection.  But  the  duty  on  these  two  classifi- 
cations is  10  and  12i  cents  per  square  foot,  respectively;  and  the  foreign  glass  imported 
into  the  United  Stales,  nearly  all  in  small  sizes  under  720  inches,  is  of  an  average 
value  of  over  20  cents  per  square  foot;  that  is,  foreign  value,  before  duty  is  paid.  It 
was  24  cents  per  square  foot  in  1912. 

This  means  a  duty  paid  cost  in  the  United  States  of  around  33  to  35  cents  per  square 
foot  on  these  brackets,  respectively. 

So,  in  order  to  meet  this  competition,  they  sold  these  two  classifications  of  sizes  at 
13i  and  21^  cents  per  foot,  respectively.  The  smallest  sizes,  those  most  "inadequately 
protected,''  were  sold  at  an  average  only  3A  cents  per  square  foot  higher  than  the 
duty  alone  on  the  imported  gL.ss  and  for  about  7  cents  per  square  foot  less  than  the 
foreign  cost  of  the  Belgian  plate  glass,  and  for  less  than  half  of  the  laid-down  cost 
of  the  foreign  gloss. 

This  doesn't  seem  to  be  reasonable,  no  more  reasonable  than  the  explanation  (p.  457) 
that  the  reason  that  small  gl;  PS  is  s<  'Id  for  less  than  ccst  is  on  account  of  the  tremendous 
demand  for  it.  We  have  here  the  anomaly  of  a  tremendous  demand  reducing  prices 
to  50  per  cent  below  the  importation  point,  instead  of  raising  them  to  the  importation 
point,  which  should  follow  by  ordinary  rules  of  logic. 

Incidentally  the  Audit  Co.'s  statement  also  shows  that  the  selling  prices  in  1909 
under  the  Dingley  tariff  were  higher  than  in  1912  under  the  Payne  tariff,  especially  in 
the  smaller  sizes,  although  the  Payne  tariff  is  25  per  cent  higher  in  these  sizes  than 
the  Dingley  tariff.  In  short,  when  the  manufacturers  secured  additional  protection 
in  these  sizes  by  the  tariff  of  1909,  they  not  only  did  not  take  advantage  of  it,  but  on  the 
contrary  reduced  their  selling  prices. 

As  for  the  convention  of  foreign  plate  glass  manufacturers  upon  which  so  much 
stress  is  laM  in  the  manufacturers'  statement,  this  is  an  arrangement  of  a  sort  that  is 
common  in  all  European  industries  but  which  is  not  a  trust  at  all,  in  our  sense  of  the 


SCHEDULE   B.  851 

PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PI/ATE   GLASS. 

term.  The  international  convention  is  not  a  corporation,  but  merely  a  trade  associa- 
tion. Each  factory  retains  its  own  autonomy  and  deals  direct  with  its  customers. 
The  primary  function  of  the  association  is  the  adjustment  of  the  production  to  the 
probable  demand,  and,  incidentally,  the  fixing  of  prices,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
regulation  of  the  production  creates  a  stable  market  in  which  prices  take  care  of  them- 
selves. Present  selling  prices  were  established  shortly  after  the  organization  of  the 
convention  in  1904  and  have  remained  practically  unchanged  since;  in  fact,  as  far  as 
the  prices  for  the  American  market  are  concerned,  there  have  not  been  any  changes  at 
all  except  of  a  minor  fractional  nature. 

An  arrangement  of  this  sort  would  be  of  great  benefit  to  the  trade  in  this  country, 
but  of  course  would  be  dangerous,  working  behind  the  protection  of  the  present  moun- 
tainous tariff  wall. 

In  the  prices  given  for  the  English  market  (p.  455)  it  is  carefully  omitted  to  state 
that  the  English  prices  are  freight  paid  to  destination,  while  the  American  prices  are 
f.  o.  b.  Antwerp.  It  is  also  carefully  omitted  that  these  English  prices  are  for  glass 
cut  to  exact  measurements,  whereas  most  Belgian  plate  glass  sold  in  England  is  in  the 
original  stock  sheets  and  on  these  the  prices  for  the  English  market  average  lower  than 
prices  for  the  United  States.  In  fact  it  is  obvious  that  as  there  is  no  duty  on  plate 
glass  entering  England .  The  prices  for  that  market  can  never  be  more  than  a  fraction 
higher  than  those  for  this  country,  as  there  would  be  no  difficulty  whatever  in  ship- 
ping to  New  York  in  bond  and  reexporting  to  Great  Britain. 

Summed  up,  the  situation  is  that  30  years  ago  we  imported  65  per  cent  of  our  plate 
glass.  During  that  period  the  American  production  has  increased  about  sixty-fold, 
and  we  are  to-day  importing  only  2  per  cent  of  the  total  consumption.  Furthermore, 
the  manufacturers  can  not  under  competitive  conditions  take  advantage  of  their 
present  protection,  their  selling  prices  usually  being  way  below  the  importation  point. 

There  isn't  any  real  reason,  however,  why  the  manufacturers  should  not  get  together 
and  take  advantage  of  their  present  protection.  They  have  effected  combinations 
in  the  past,  and  if  the  present  tariff  is  allowed  to  stand  there  is  every  reason  to  expect 
the  organization  of  such  a  combination  in  the  future.  There  are  abundant  trade 
precedents  for  it,  and  a  premium  of  10  or  15  cents  per  square  foot  on  a  production  of 
60.000,000  square  feet  per  year  is  a  prize  worth  working  for. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

SEMON  BACHE  &  Co., 

F.  J.  GOERTNER,  Sales  Manager. 

NEW  YORK,  December  1,  1911. 
To  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN  :  We  beg  to  request  your  consideration  of  paragraph  No.  102  of  the  tariff 
act  of  1909  (polished  plate  glass). 

From  a  protective  point  of  view  the  duties  now  imposed  are  far  out  of  reason. 
Attached  hereto  is  an  itemized  statement  showing  that  the  cost  of  production  in 
this  country  does  not  exceed  the  European  cost  by  more  than  3  or  4  cents  per  square 
foot  at  the  outside  whereas  the  duties  run  from  10  to  22^  cents. 

Although  this  is  a  statement  of  average  costs  it  is  much  more  accurate  than  such 
calculations  usually  are.  No  plate-glass  factory  makes  anything  to  speak  of  except 
plate  glass,  and  the  operations  are  unusually  free  from  complexity.  Verification  of 
the  details  of  the  cost  01  American  production  will  be  found  in  the  pages  immediately 
following  the  statement  itself. 

We  also  quote  the  gelling  prices  of  the  American  manufacturers,  showing  that 
they  are  selling  the  great  bulk  of  their  product  at  prices  only  a  trifle  above  the 
duty  on  the  imported  article.  It  is  obvious  that  a  manufacturer  does  not  need  a 
protection  of  10  cents  per  foot  on  glass  that  he  sells  for  11  cents,  nor  does  he  need 
12£  cents  protection  on  glass  sold  at  14  or  15  cents,  nor  22£  cents  protection  on  glass 
sold  at  from  22  to  32  cents  per  foot. 

As  for  the  revenue  point  of  view,  to  get  the  revenue  we  must  have  importations. 
These,  in  the  case  of  plate  glass,  are  steadily  dwindling,  and  amount  to-day  to  about 
5  per  cent  of  the  American  consumption. 

At  the  present  moment  the  American  consumer  is  not  suffering  to  any  extent  from 
the  high  tariff.  As  stated  above,  the  manufacturers  are  selling  the  product  at  only 
a  cent  or  2  per  foot  above  the  duty  alone  on  the  imported  glass/  In  fact,  there  is  a 
good  deal  of  glass  being  sold  for  less  than  the  duty. 


852 


TAEIFP  HEAKINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE  GLASS.  . 

In  times  past,  ,however,  the  American  public  has  paid  heavily  for  the  excessive 
protection  given  to  the  plate-glass  industry. 

In  fact,  the  public  has  paid  handsomely  during  the  brief  period  since  the  passage 
of  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill.  The  ink  was  hardly  dry  on  that  document  when  nev 
prices  were  issued  simultaneously  by  the  American  manufacturers.  They  repre 
sented  an  advance  of  about  20  per  cent  over  the  previous  prices.  The  upward  move 
ment  continued,  reaching  its  highest  point  in  the  prices  pi  April  24  of  this  year,  and 
represent  an  advance  of  about  40  per  cent  over  the  prices  of  1908-9.  Since  then 
beginning  early  this  summer,  prices  have  dropped  to  the  1908-9  level. 

It  is  only  a  question  of  time  before  the  plate-glass  manufacturers  get  together  again 
They  can  do  about  anything  they  like  behind  the  present  tariff  wall  without  fear 
of  competition  from  abroad.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  reaching  a  good  understand 
ing  among  themselves.  So  far  the  combinations  that  have  been  formed  have  col- 
lapsed after  an  existence  of  a  year  or  two,  but  there  isn't  any  real  reason  why  price^ 
could  not  be  put  up  to  the  importation  point  and  kept  there  indefinitely. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  dangerous  to  leave  this  high  protection  hanging 
up  as  a  premium  for  the  formation  of  trade  combinations.  Prices  could  be  raised  at 
average  of  12  to  15  cents  per  square  foot  above  to-day's  level  without  increasing  th*- 
importations  by  more  than  a  trifle.  American  production  of  plate  glass  is  to-daj 
about  50,000,000  square  feet  annually.  There  is  a  prize  of  from  five  to  seven  million 
dollars  of  annual  income  waiting  as  a  reward  for  the  plan  that  will  get  together  th«. 
American  plate-glass  factories  and  keep  them  together.  There  are  only  12  manu 
facturing  companies,  all  told.  Many  more  difficult  combinations  have  been  effected 

The  subject  uppermost  in  the  public  mind  to-day  is  the  regulation  of  all  trade  com- 
binations and  the  prevention  of  oppressive  combinations.  It  in  only  through  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  that  an  oppressive  "trust"  in  the  plate-glass  business  could  be 
formed.  The  present  schedule  of  duties  is  a  standing  invitation  to  create  one. 

The  present  duties  could  be  cut.  at  least  in  half,  without  injuring  the  America! 
manufacturer  and  affording  to  the  American  consumer  the  protection  of  possible  com- 
petition from  abroad. 

Respectfully,  SEMON  BACHE  &  Co., 

F.  J.  GOERTNER,  Sales  Manager. 

Comparison  of  American  production  and  importations. 


Plate-class  production 
in  the  United  States. 

Imports. 

Square 
feet. 

Total 
value. 

Square 
feet. 

Total 
value. 

Percent- 
age of 
total 
consump- 
tion. 

1880..                                       1,042,000 

1,906,617 
2,823,965 
1,902,146 
3,103,813 
3,303,227 
1,201,189 
709,596 
927,  692 
1,061,038 
3,240,316 
4,209,979 
0,  320,  553 

$648,890 
917,369 
440,299 
688,203 
764,914 
311,848 
175,970 
233,099 
256,347 
793,755 

Per  cent. 
65 
24 

1890                                                               .   .       9,  lOD.lll 

§4,172,48-1 

1S94 

1895                                                     .   .              

]  896                                                                               

1897.                                                   

189S                                                                               

1899                                                                          ; 

1900                                                                            10,883,578 

5,158,598 

6 

1901 

1902 

1,006,765 
1,363,058 

1903 

1904.                                                        27,293,138 

7,97S,253 

4,580,207 
6,087,481 
7,330,327 

884,  722 
1,084,575 
1,529,773 

14.1 

1905 

1900 

1907.                                                                                     

0,761,526 
3,883,684 
2,  294,  448 
3,  209,  392 
3,  957,  934 

1,421,300 
864,  756 
507,851 
726,  224 
893,436 

1908 

1909                                                                                 47  370  254 

ij 

1910 

1911 



1912..    .                 .                                                        00,000,000 

1  1,200,  000 

... 

1  Approximately. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


853 


PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

NOTE. 

The  figures  in  parentheses  on  the  cost  calculation  in  the  table  refer  to  the  succeeding 
pages  which  contain  verifications  of  the  individual  items.  In  most  cases  the  proof 
of  the  accuracy  of  the  figures  is  taken  from  the  Government  records  and  in  all  cases 
the  authority  is  stated. 

Verification  of  the  foreign  cost  is  not  necessary,  as  it  is  practically  admitted  by  the 
American  plate-glass  manufacturers.  (See  p.  1142,  Tariff  Hearings,  Schedule  B, 
60th  Cong.) 

The  Belgian  cost  is  used  as  the  basis  of  comparison,  as  the  Belgian  production  is 
the  cheapest  in  Europe  and  the  importations  of  plate  glass  into  the  United  States  are 
mostly  from  that  country. 

Cost  of  production  in  Belgium  and  in  the  United  States  of  polished  plate  glass. 


Requirements 
for  producing  1 
square  foot. 

Cost  per  unit. 

Cost     of     require- 
ments for  produc- 
ing 1  square  foot. 

Belgium. 

United  States. 

Belgium. 

United 
States. 

White  sand  

LABOR. 

0.041  days  (1)  ... 

MATERIALS. 

5.84  pounds  (2)  . 
1.  CO  pounds  (2). 
0.54  pounds  (2)  . 
2.14  pounds  (2). 
0.10  pounds  (2). 
30.50  pounds  (3) 
2.66  pounds  (4). 
0.05  pounds  
0.05  pounds  (5). 

0.0001674  pots.. 
0.451  pounds  .  .  . 
0.01  pounds  

$0.8277  per  day.. 

$0.89  per  ton.. 
$10.10  per  ton. 
$21.  50  per  ton. 
$1.10  per  ton.. 
$12.20  per  ton. 
$0.48  per  ton  
$1.70  per  ton  
$0.012  per  pound 
$0.03  per  pound.. 

$22  per  pot  
$0.096  per  pound 
$0.0144           per 
pound. 

$1.93  per  day  (6). 

$2  per  ton  (7)  
$12  per  ton  (8)  .  . 
$26  per  ton  (9)  .  . 
$2.40  per  ton  (10) 
$6  per  ton  (11)  .. 
$0.85  per  ton  (12) 
$5.10  per  ton  (13) 
$0.03  per  pound  . 
$0.028  per  pound 
(14). 
$26  per  pot  (15).. 
$0.01  per  pound  . 

Cents. 
3.39 

.26 
.81 
.58 
.12 
.06 
.73 
.23 
.06 
.15 

.38 
.43 
.02 

.10 
.22 

f        2.92 
\        1.18 

1.12 
2.03 

Cents. 
7.91 

.58 
.96 
.70 
.26 
.03 
1.30 
.68 
.15 
.14 

.43 
.45 
.25 

.06 
.26 

}          1.23 
1.12 
2.08 

Salt  cake  

Soda  ash  

Limestone. 

Carbon  (charcoal)  

Grinding  sand 

Plaster  

Emery  

Rouge  

Pots  

Rnnnp.r  irons 

Felts  

Lubricants  

Miscellaneous  supplies  

Coal    for   melting   furnaces 
and  for  power. 
Coal  for  annealing  kilns  
Maintenance,  including  fur- 
nace repairs. 
General    expenditure    and 
shrinkage. 

Total  

FUEL. 

18.06  pounds  
6.46  pounds  

$3.14  per  ton  
$3.65  per  ton  

l$lperton(16)... 

1 

14.19 

18.59 

Analysis  of  cost  in  United  States. 


Labor 

Material 

Fuel 

Maintenance 

General  expense  and  miscellaneous. 


Total. 


Per  cent. 
42 
34 

7 


11 


100 


This  calculation  covers  average  shop  cost  only  and  does  not  include  interest  on 
investment,  general  office  expense,  selling  expense,  nor  the  cost  of  packing  material 
or  of  labor  for  packing.  It  is  impossible  to  make  an  accurate  average  statement  of 
these  items  which  may  run  anywhere  from  2  to  3i  cents  per  square  foot,  either  in 
Belgium  or  in  the  United  States,  according  to  the  individual  factory.  See  note  (17) 
following. 


854  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

_  NOTE  1. — Amount  of  /after. — We  give  this  as  0.041  days,  or  the  equivalent  proposi- 
tion of  24.4  square  feet  per  man  per  day  or  7,320  square  feet  per  man  per  year  of  300 
working  days. 

This  is  a  difficult  item  on  which  to  reach  an  exact  figure  as  the  result  can  not  be 
reached  by  dividing  the  annual  output  of  a  factory  by  the  average  number  of  em- 
ployees. All  the  plate-glass  factories  make  their  own  pots  and  the  cost  of  the  labor 
in  this  department  is  not  part  of  the  general  labor  cost  but  is  included  in  the  pot  cost, 
which  is  a  separate  item  in  the  calculation  (see  note  15).  {Similarly,  many  of  the  com- 
panies mine  their  own  sand  or  dredge  it  from  river  or  lake  beds,  this  labor  representing 
the  cost  of  the  sand  and  not  being  part  of  the  general  cost  of  manufacture.  Some  of 
the  companies  operate  private  railroads.  The  number  of  employees  in  these  three 
departments  in  one  factory  that  we  know  of  aggregates  90  men. 

There  are  also  companies  that  specialize  in  very  thin  or  very  thick  plate  glass, 
both  of  which  are  considerably  more  expensive  to  produce  than  the  regular  one-quarter 
inch  thickness  and  decrease  the  output  per  man  accordingly. 

In  the  case  of  a  factory  confining  itself  to  straight  plate  glass  production,  however, 
it  will  be  found  that  the  average  output  per  man  is  considerably  in  excess  of  the 
amount  we  state. 

For  instance,  the  general  manager  of  the  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.  stated  to  a  commercial 
agency  under  date  of  March  6,  1911,  as  follows: 

"We  expect  to  have  part  of  the  new  plant  in  operation  within  six  to  eight  months. 
When  it  is  running  complete  we  will  have  a  pay  roll  between  $75,000  and  $100,000  per 
month.  Our  output  is  now  about  500,000  square  feet  of  glass  per  month,  and  it  will 
then  be  about  1,000,000  square  feet.  At  this  time  we  are  now  employing  about  800 
men  including  those  employed  on  the  new  work." 

Eight  hundred  men  at  300  working  days  per  year  equals  240,000  working  days  per 
year. 

Five  hundred  thousand  square  feet  per  month  equals  6,000,000  square  feet  per 
year,  which  divided  by  240,000  equals  25  feet  per  man  per  day  or  7,500  feet  per  man 
per  year. 

It  will  be  noted  that  these  800  men  include  those  engaged  on  the  new  plant  and  we 
may  add  that  this  company  dredges  its  sand  from  Lake  Erie,  leaving  the  obvious 
conclusion  that  this  particular  factory's  output  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  8,000  feet 
per  man  per  year. 

In  the  Commoner  and  Glassworker,  a  Pittsburgh  trade  publication,  in  the  issue  of 
April  24,  1909,  there  is  an  article  concerning  this  company  and  giving  details  of  im- 
provements recently  made  at  the  plant  and  winding  up  with  the  statement  that  the 
monthly  capacity  is  450.000  square  feet  and  that  the  employees  number  700,  which 
works  out  at  7,7i4  feet  per  man  per  year  and  agrees  remarkably  well  with  the  state- 
ment quoted  above  made  two  years  later. 

NOTE  2. — Melting  materials. — We  allow  10.22  pounds  for  the  total  material  entering 
into  the  composition  of  a  square  foot.  The  weight  of  plate  glass  in  the  rough,  imme- 
diately after  casting  and  before  grinding  or  polishing,  is  about  7£  pounds  per  foot,  so 
that  we  obviously  allow  sufficient  material  with  proper  allowance  for  volatilization, 
which  is  about  30  per  cent  in  soda  ash  but  much  less  in  the  other  important  materials. 

NOTE  3.— Grinding  sand. — The  30.5  pounds  allowed  is  rather  larger  than  the  quantity 
actually  required,  but  a?  this  material  is  more  expensive  in  this  country  than  in  Europe 
we  have  allowed  a  maximum  quantity  to  remove  all  room  for  argument.  The  total 
consumption  of  grinding:  stmd  on  page" 23  of  Census  Bulletin  No.  62  of  1905  is  given  as 
410,856  tons.  Not  all  of  this  was  used  for  grinding  plate  glass,  as  there  were  several 
million  square  feet  of  ground  and  obscured  glass  produced  in  1905,  most  of  which  was 
made  by  the  sand-blast  process.  However,  assuming  that  the  entire  consumption 
was  for  the  manufacture  of  polished  plate,  the  410.856  tons  divided  by  the  1905  pro- 
duction of  polished  plate— 27,293,138  square  feet — equals  30.1  pounds  per  foot  of 
production. 

NOTE  4. — Plaster.— We  state  the  required  quantity  as  2.66  pounds  per  foot  of  pro- 
duction. The  total  consumption  according  to  page'23  of  Census  Bulletin  No.  62  of 
1905  was  33,939  tons,  which  divided  by  the  number  of  square  feet  produced — 
27,293.138 — gives  a  results  of  2.49  pounds  per  square  foot. 

NOTE  S.—Rouge.—'We  state  the  quantity  as  0.05  pound  per  square  foot.  Page 
23  of  Census  Bulletin  No.  62  sives  the  consumption  as  1,098,566  pounds,  which  divided 
by  the  production  of  27.293,138  square  feet,  give  a  result  of  0.04  pounds  per  foot. 

'NOTE  6. — Cost  of  labor. — It  is  fortunately  possible  to  confirm  this  item  very  exactly 
from  official  records.  The  report  of  the  United  States  Commission  on  Immigration, 
now  issuing  from  the  Government  Printing  Office,  gives  in  its  investigation  of  the 
conditions  in  the  manufacture  of  pkte  glass  the  following  tables. 


SCHEDULE  n.  855 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

STUDY   OF   EMPLOYEES. 

TABLE  38. — Per  cent  of  male  employees  18  years  of  age  or  over  earning  each  specified 
amount  per  week,  by  general  nativity  and  race — Plate  glass. 

[This  table  includes  only  races  with  80  or  more  males  reporting.    The  totals,  however,  are  for  all  races.] 


General  nativity 
and  race. 

Num- 
ber 
report- 
ing 
com- 
plete 
data. 

Aver- 
age 
earn- 
ings 
per 
week. 

Per  cent  earning  each  specified  amount  per  week. 

$7.50 
or  over. 

$10  or 
over. 

$12.50 
or  over. 

$15  or 
over. 

$17.50 
or  over. 

$20  or 
over. 

$22.50 
or  over. 

$25  or 
over. 

Native  born  of  na- 
tive father: 
White      

959 
92 

110 

222 
89 
144 
403 
83 
513 

$12.  86 
12.90 

13.38 

13.28 
9.05 
10.85 
11.24 
10.94 
11.10 

99.4 
100.0 

99.1 

100.0 
95.5 
100.0 
99.8 
100.0 
100.0 

71.3 
80.4 

71.8 

75.2 
1.1 
52.1 
55.6 
32.5 
53.6 

43.2 
59.8 

50.9 

55.0 
1.1 
21.5 
23.3 
7.2 
25.0 

27.6 
26.1 

38.2 

35.1 
1.1 
12.5 
10.2 
3.6 
15.4 

11.6 
1.1 

17.3 

11.7 
1.1 
2.8 
4.0 
1.2 
2.7 

5.3 

2.9 

2.1 

Native  born  of  for- 
eign  father,  by 
country  of  birth 
of  father,  G  e  r  - 
many  

7.3 
4.1 

2.7 
2.3 

.0 

1.8 

Foreign   born   by 
race: 
German  

Magyar 

Polish 

1.2 

.7 

.7 

Slovak  

.2 

Grand  total.. 
Total  native  born 
of  foreign  father.. 
Total  native  born.. 
Total  foreign  born. 

3,261 

223 

1,274 
1,987 

12.07 

13.67 
13.00 
11.48 

99.4 

99.1 
99.4 
99.5 

59.0 

74.0 
72.6 
50.2 

34.3 

53.4 

46.2 
26.6 

21.1 

38.1 

29.4 
15.9 

8.1 

17.9 

11.9 
5.6 

3.3 

9.0 
5.6 
1.8 

1.7 

4.0 
2.9 
.9 

1.2 

1.8 
1.9 
.7 

STUDY   OP   EMPLOYEES. 


TABLE  43. — Per  cent  of  male  employees  14  and  under  18  years  of  age  earning  each  specified 
amount  per  week,  by  general  nativity  and  race — Plate  glass. 

[This  table  includes  only  races  with  40  or  more  males  reporting.    The  totals,  however,  are  for  all  races.] 


General  nativity  and  race. 

Number 
reporting 
complete 
data. 

Average 
earnings 
per 
week. 

Per  cent  earning  each  specified  amount 
per  week. 

$2.50  or 
over. 

$5  or 
over. 

$7.50  or 
over. 

$10  or 
over. 

Native  hnrn  nf  n^tivA  fathprj  whitfl 

64 

$7.98 

100.0 

89.1 

67.2 

14.1 

Grand  total  

174 
66 
132 
42 

7.87 
7.60 
7.81 
8.04 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

90.8 
90.9 
90.2 
92.9 

69.0 
66.7 
67.4 
73.8 

9.2 
6.1 
9.8 
7.1 

Total  native  born  of  foreign  father  

Total  native  born  

Total  foreign  born  

In  the  above  tables  figures  are  given  for  a  total  of  3,261  adult  employees  and  174 
boys,  showing  average  weekly  wages  of  $12.07  and  $7.87,  respectively.  Assuming 
these  proportions  of  3,261  to  174  to  hold  good,  we  reach  an  average  weekly  wage  of 
$11.85,  or  $1.97  per  day. 

The  above  tables,  Nos.  38  and  43,  however,  show  an  unduly  large  proportion  of 
native  American  labor;  that  is,  of  high-priced  labor,  and  an  unduly  small  proportion 
of  Italian  and  Slav  labor;  that  is,  of  cheap  labor. 

This  Italian  and  Slav  labor  constitutes  60  to  70  per  cent  of  the  entire  working  force 
in  the  average  American  factory,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Clause,  president  of  the  Pittsburgh 
Plate  Glass  Co.,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  in  1908. 
(See  p.  1158,  Tariff  Hearings.  Schedule  B,  Sixtieth  Congress.)  This  is  also  confirmed 


856 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

by  another  table  (No.  130)  in  the  report  of  the  Immigration  Commission  in  which  the 
racial  distribution  of  employees  in  a  typical  plate  glass  plant  is  given  as  follows: 

Native  white 87 

Native  negro 12 

English 38 

Irish 9 

Scotch 2 

German 17 

French 88 

Races  constituting  about  67  per  cent  of  the  total: 

Italian 220 

Slovak 294 

Magyar 16 

Croatian 5 

Unknown . .  1 


Total... 


789 

Tables  Nos.  38  and  43  show  an  average  wage  of  $1.97  per  day  for  a  working  force 
containing  1,069  native  Americans  out  of  a  total  of  3,261  (exclusive  of  boys),  or  about 
33  per  cent,  and  1,143  Italians,  Slovaks,  etc.,  out  of  3,261,  or  about  35  per  cent.  It  is 
obvious  that  average  wages  for  a  force  consisting  of  only  11  per  cent  native  Americans 
and  about  67  per  cent  Italians,  Slovaks,  etc.,  will  be  very  considerably  lower. 

NOTE  7. — Cost  of  melting  sand. — We  state  it  as  $2  per  ton.  Census  Bulletin  No.  62, 
1905,  page  23,  gives  the  total  consumption  as  769,702  tons  of  a  total  cost  of  $1,547,147, 
or  $2.01  per  ton. 

NOTE  8. — Cost  of  salt  cake. — We  state  it  as  $12  per  ton.  Census  Bulletin  No.  62,  of 
1905,  page  23,  gives  the  total  consumption  as  53.905  tons  of  a  total  value  of  $802,611, 
or  $14. 89  per  ton. 

This  material  has  declined  in  price  since  1905.  There  have  been  small  importa- 
tions during  the  first  nine  months  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1911,  amounting 
to  10,397  tons  of  a  foreign  value  of  $109,667,  which,  plus  the  duty  of  $1  per  ton,  works 
out  at  $11 .55  per  ton. 

Salt  cake  and  soda  ash  are  interchangeable  materials  in  glass  manufacture.  Some 
American  factories  use  soda  ash  exclusively.  When  soda  ash  alone  is  used,  fusion  is 
quicker  and  at  a  lower  temperature,  thus  effecting  a  saving  in  fuel,  compensating  for 
the  increased  cost  of  the  material  as  compared  with  salt  cake. 

NOTE  9. — Cost  of  soda  ash. — We  state  it  as  $26  per  ton.  Census  Bulletin  No.  62,  of 
905,  page  23,  gives  the  consumption  as  215,462  tons  of  a  total  value  of  $4,068,804,  or 
$18.88  per  ton.  Unlike  salt  cake,  this  material  has  advanced  in  price  during  the  past 
few  years.  There  has  been  a  trifling  importation  during  the  first  nine  months  of  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1911,  2,951.203  pounds,  or  about  1,476  tons  of  a  foreign 
value  of  $33.024,  which,  plus  the  duty  of  S5  per  ton,  give^  a  total  value  of  $40,402,  or 
about  S27.38  per  ton.  (See  also  the  preceding  memorandum  regarding  salt  cake.) 

NOTES  10,  11,  12,  13,  14.— All  figures  from  Census  Bulletin  No.  62,  of  1905,  page  23. 


Total  con- 
sumption. 


Total 
value. 


Value 
per  unit. 


Grinding  sand  (12) 


Plaster  (1,3)...  do 


Rouse  (14) pounds 


115, G55 

3,750 

410, 856 

33, 939 

1,098,566 


$274, 209 

22, 333 

332,013 

169, 988 

29, 869 


$2. 37 
5.96 


5.01 
.027 


NOTE. — The  cost  of  grinding  sand  in  many  factories  is  exclusively  for  labor.    See  note  No.  1. 


NOTE  15. — -Cost  of  pots.— Our  statement  of  S2G  per  pot  is  difficult  to  confirm,  as  the 
plate-glass  factorio-  make  practically  all  their  own  pots.  We  have  accordingly  based 
ourselves  on  the  Belgian  cost,  phn  about  one-third  of  what  the  freight  and  duty 
would  amount  to  if  the  pots  were  imported,  and  as  none  actually  are  imported,  this 
is  a  reasonably  close  approximation.  This  id  a  very  small  item  in  the  cost  in  any 
event. 

NOTE  16.— Cost  of  fuel. — The  value  of  $1  per  ton  assigned  to  coal  should  rather  be 
described  as  the  relative  cost  of  fuel  as  compared  with  the  Belgian  cost. 


SCHEDULE   B.  857 

PARAGRAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

No  single  item  in  the  cost  varies  so  greatly  as  this  one.  Many  of  the  American 
factories  are  still  operating  with  natural  gas,  particularly  those  in  Pennsylvania, 
which  are  more  than  half  of  the  total  number  in  the  country.  Still  other  factories, 
notably  the  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co.,  own  their  own  coal  mines,  or  are  so  located  with 
reference  to  coal  deposits  that  their  cost  is  considerably  under  $1  per  ton.  In  other 
factories  the  cost  is  higher,  but  $1  is  a  fair  average  for  a  ton  of  coal  or  for  fuel  of  equal 
caloric  value. 

Census  Bulletin  No.  62,  of  1905,  on  page  35,  gives  the  total  consumption  of  coal  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  as  419,636  tons  of  a  value  of  $574,274,  or  $1.37  per  ton. 
This  includes  the  operation  of  all  establishments  and  is  undoubtedly  much  higher 
than  in  the  plate-glass  factories,  who  are  very  large  consumers  and  who  were  located 
with  reference  to  cheap  fuel,  as  is  stated  in  the  preface  to  the  Census  Bulletin  above 
referred  to. 

NOTE  17. — The  investment  required  to  erect  and  operate  a  plate-glass  factory  inde- 
pendent of  banking  facilities,  is  about  33J  per  cent  higher  in  the  United  States  than  in 
Belgium.  The  capital  required  in  Belgium  is  about  45  cents  per  square  foot  of  annual 
capacity.  In  the  United  States  it  requires  about  60  cents  per  square  foot  of  annual 
capacity.  The  interest  on  this  difference  of  15  cents  per  square  foot,  at  5  per  cent  per 
annum,  amounts  to  about  three-fourths  cent  per  square  foot  in  the  cost  of  the  product. 

General  office  expense  and  selling  expense  is,  generally  speaking,  higher  in  Belgium 
than  in  the  United  States.  The  Belgian  factories  sell  very  little  of  their  product  in 
their  own  country — not  more  than  5  to  10  per  cent — all  the  rest  being  exported  and 
sold  in  relatively  small  units  than  is  the  practice  in  the  United  States.  The  fact  of 
of  exporting  the  bulk  of  their  product  naturally  requires  a  much  larger  clerical  force 
for  the  handling  of  the  business,  on  account  of  consular  formalities,  etc.,  and  the  multi- 
plication of  clerical  details.  This  is  a  difficult  matter  to  reduce  to  figures,  but  it  is  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  to  anyone  familiar  with  plate-glass  plants  that  the 
entire  office  force  of  an  American  factory  will  not  exceed  five  or  six  people,  that  is, 
exclusive  of  the  force  employed  in  keeping  factory  records,  etc.,  all  of  whom  are  pro- 
vided for  in  the  administrative  expense  item  shown  on  the  calculation  of  shop  cost, 
whereas  a  Belgian  factory  will  employ  an  office  staff  three  or  four  times  as  large. 

General  office  expense,  however,  is  a  most  intangible  matter,  particularly  in  close 
corporations,  where  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  proprietors  of  the  business 
whether  their  profits  take  the  form  of  dividends  or  large  salaries. 

Selling  expense  is  also  a  greater  item  with  the  average  Belgian  factory  than  with  the 
average  American  establishment.  That  is  natural,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the 
Belgian  market  is  all  over  the  world  instead  of  being  confined  to  one  country.  The 
average  American  plate-glass  plant  employs  only  one  general  sales  agent,  who  rarely 
has  any  assistants.  The  Belgian  factory  employs  an  official  of  the  same  title,  and  in 
addition  to  this  markets  most  of  its  product  through  brokers,  who  are  paid  a  com- 
mission of  from  2  to  3  per  cent. 

In  the  cost  of  packing,  it  is  about  a  stand-off.  The  labor  costs  less  in  Belgium;  the 
packing  material  itself — lumber,  straw,  excelsior,  etc. — costs  less  in  the  United  States. 
It  should  be  said,  however,  that  this  refers  merely  to  packing  in  Belgium  in  a  general 
way.  The  packing  of  Belgian  glass  destined  for  the  United  States  or  any  other  country 
to  which  it  is  exported  by  water  is  very  much  more  expensive  than  the  packing 
employed  by  the  American  manufacturers  for  rail  shipment. 

The  general  expense  above  referred  to  is  simply  general  office  expense.  The  ex- 
pense of  record  keeping  in  the  factory,  and  of  all  office  expense  directly  connected 
with  the  operation  of  a  factory,  in  fact,  all  office  expense  except  that  connected  with 
the  sale  of  the  material  and  the  relations  between  the  manufacturer  and  his  customers, 
are  included  in  the  cost  calculation. 

SELLING   PRICES    OF   AMERICAN   PLATE    GLASS. 

We  believe  it  will  be  accepted  as  an  axiom  that  no  manufacturer  will  continuously 
sell  his  product  below  cost.  He  may  perhaps  sell  occasional  parcels  of  merchandise 
below  the  cost  of  production,  or  perhaps  he  may  sell  his  entire  product,  for  a  very  brief 
period,  below  the  cost  of  production,  but  he  will  not  continuously  sell  his  product 
on  this  basis  and  keep  his  factory  in  full  operation. 

The  manner  in  which  the  great  bulk  of  American  plate  glass  is  sold  is  in  carload 
lots  of  what  are  known  as  glazing  stock  sheets;  that  is,  the  manufacturer  does  not 
undertake  to  furnish  any  specific  sizes,  but  merely  sizes  within  certain  limits — that 
is,  of  any  given  quantity  he  undertakes  to  furnish. 


858  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

Four  per  cent  in  sizes  having  an  area  of  from  1  to  3  square  feet,  6  per  cent  in  sizes  hav- 
ing an  area  of  from  3  to  5  square  feet,  and  so  on.  These  divisions  are  known  as  brackets. 
The  percentages  furnished  in  each  of  the  various  brackets,  and  the  way  in  which  the 
average  price  of  a  carload  of  glazing  stock  sheets  is  worked  out,  is  shown  in  the  following 
tables.  The  first  table  shows  the  figures  on  a  carload  of  10,000  square  feet  at  the 
prices  current  during  the  greater  part  of  the  years  1908-9.  The  second  table  shows 
to-day's  prices. 

Average  price  of  carload  of  10,000  square  feet,  1908-9. 

4  per  cent  in  sizes  from     1  to     3  square  feet;  that  is,     400  square  feet,  at  $0.114 $45. 60 

6  per  cent  in  sizes  from     3  to     5  square  feet;  that  is,     600  square  feet,  at     .142 85.20 

20  per  cent  in  sizes  from     5  to   10  square  feet;  that  is,  2,000  square  feet,  at     .228 456.00 

21  per  cent  in  sizes  from   10  to   25  square  feet;  that  is,  2,100  square  feet,  at     .275 577..50 

22  per  cent  in  sizes  from   25  to   50  square  feet;  that  is,  2,200  square  feet,  at     .285 627.00 

24  per  cent  in  sizes  from   50  to  100  square  feet;  that  is,  2,400  square  feet,  at     .295 708.00 

3  per  cent  in  sizes  from  100  to  120  square  feet;  that  is,     300  square  feet,  at     .323 96. 90 

100  per  cent.  10,000  square  feet.  2, 596. 20 

That  is  an  average  price  per  square  foot  of  almost  26  cents. 

Average  price  of  carload  of  10,000  square  feet,  1911. 

4  per  cent  in  sizes  from     1  to   2J  square  feet;  that  is,     400  square  feet,  at  $0.1045  $41.80 

4  per  cent  in  sizes  from   2§  to     4  square  feet;  that  is,     400  square  feet,  at     .133    53. 20 

2  per  cent  in  sizes  from     4  to     5  square  feet;  that  is,     200  square  feet,  at     .1425  28. 50 

8  per  cent  in  sizes  from     5  to     7  square  feet;  that  is,     800  square  feet,  at     .2185 174.80 

10  per  cent  in  sizes  from  7  to   10  sqaure  feet;  that  is,  1,000  square  feet,  at  .228    228.00 

5  per  cent  in  sizes  from  10  to    12  square  feet;  that  is,  500  square  feet,  at  .2375  118.75 

18  per  cent  in  sizes  from  12  to    25  square  feet;  that  is,  1,800  square  feet,  at  .266     478.80 

22  per  cent  in  sizes  from  25  to   50  square  feet;  that  is,  2,200  square  feet,  at  .285    627.00 

24  per  cent  in  sizes  from  50  to  100  square  feet;  that  is,  2,400  square  feet,  at  .28975 695.40 

3  per  cent  in  sizes  from  100  to  120  square  feet;  that  is,     300  square  feet,  at     .323    96.90 

100  per  cent.  10,000  square  feet.  2, 543. 15 

Average  price.  25.43  cents  per  square  foot. 

The  duty  on  either  of  these  standard  carloads  would  be  $2,140. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  average  selling  price  of  a  carload  of  glazing  stock  sheets 
was  just  a  trifle  under  26  cents  per  square  foot  in  1908  and  is  about  2  per  cent  lower 
to-day. 

Now  the  average  price  of  a  carload  of  glazing  stock  sheets  is  considerably  higher 
than  the  average  price  obtained  for  the  total  product  of  a  factory.  The  manufacturers 
themselves  testified  on  this  point  in  1909.  We  quote  from  the  statement  signed  by 
the  independent  plate  glass  manufacturers — the  factories  exclusive  of  the  Pittsburgh 
Plate  Glass  Co. — dated  February  11,  1909,  and  printed  on  pages  7863  to  7869,  inclusive, 
of  the  appendix  to  the  tariff  hearings  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress,  the  quotation  following 
being  from  page  7865: 

"The  manufacturer  is  burdened  with  cuttings  from  stock  sheets,  by  the  trade. 
called  strips,  with  second  quality,  and  with  inferior  quality  called  O.  B.'s,  which 
glass  sells  at  about  one-third  of  cost.  There  are  also  large  quantities  of  small  glass  sold 
not  included  in  the  customary  car  of  stock  sheets,  at  prices  far  below  cost.  The  result 
is  the  average  price  for  the  entire  product  is  much  less  than  the  average  price  received 
per  square  foot  for  a  carload  of  glazing  stock  sheets." 

The  difference  between  the  average  price  of  a  carload  of  glazing  stock  sheets  and 
the  average  price  received  for  the  entire  product  of  a  factory  is  usually  figured  at  4  to 
6  cents  per  square  foot.  Five  cents  is  a  fair  average.  That  is,  if  the  price  of  stock 
sheets  averages  2G  cents  per  square  foot,  it  means  that  an  average  price  of  only  21 
cents  per  square  foot  is  being  obtained  for  the  product  of  a  factory  taken  as  a  whole. 

The  American  plate-glass  factories  are  running  along  as  usual  with  only  the  usual 
and  normal  shutdowns,  and  are  selling  their  product  at  20  or  21  cents  per  foot  on  the 
average,  these  figures  being  reached  as  outlined  above. 

We  submit  that  this  condition  is  consistent  with  the  average  cost  as  stated  by  us 
and  is  not  consistent  with  any  higher  cost. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


859 


PAEAGEAPHS    101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

PITTSBURGH,  PA.,  January  19,  1906. 

GENTLEMEN:  Withdrawing  all  previous  quotations  on  stock  sheets  and  cut  sizes, 
the  following  prices  go  into  effect  this  day,  subject  to  change  without  notice: 
\ 

One-fourth  inch  glass,  glazing  quality,  per  square  foot. 


Stock 
sheet 
prices. 

Cut  size 
prices. 

1  to  3  foot  brackets      .                                                .                              

Cents. 
19 

Cents. 
24 

3  to  5  foot  brackets  ...                                             ..                          

22 

28 

5  to  10  foot  brackets  

34 

39 

10  to  25  foot  brackets  

44 

49 

25  to  50  foot  brackets  

46 

51 

50  to  100  foot  brackets                                                                       .  .            

49 

54 

100  to  120  foot  brackets  

54 

60 

F.  o.  b.  factory,  freight  equalized  with  nearest  factory. 
The  cut  size  prices  do  not  include  A  B  sizes  or  their  multiples. 
For  three-sixteenths  inch,  15  per  cent  to  be  added,  and  for  special  thickness  (other 
than  three-sixteenths  inch)  three-eighths  inch,  and  five-sixteenths  inch,  inclusive,  10 
per  cent  to  be  added  to  the  above  prices. 

Allegheny  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Edward  Ford  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Standard  Plate 
Glass  Co.,  Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Penn  American  Plate  Glass  Co., 
St.  Louis  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Columbia  Plate  Glass  Co.,  Heidenkamp  Mir- 
ror Co.,  Kittanning  Plate  Glass  Co. 

The  nine  companies  whose  signature  is  appended  to  the  above  quotation  represented 
all  the  American  manufacturers  with  the  exception  of  the  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co. 

BUTLER,  PA.,  August  19, 1909. 

GENTLEMEN:  Withdrawing  all  previous  quotations  on  stock  sheets  and  cut  sizes  the 
following  prices  go  into  effect  this  day,  subject  to  change  without  notice: 

Polished  plate  glass  about  one-fourth  inch,  glazing  quality,  per  square  foot. 


Stock 
sheet 
prices. 

Cut  size 
prices. 

1  to  3  foot  brackets  .                          

Cents. 
18 

Cents. 
22 

3  to  5  foot  brackets  

22 

27 

5  to  10  foot  brackets  

28 

33 

10  to  25  foot  brackets 

30 

35 

25  to  50  foot  brackets  

32 

37 

50  to  100  foot  brackets  .  . 

34 

40 

100  to  120  foot  brackets  .                             .  * 

36 

42 

120  to  130  foot  brackets  

40 

46 

130  to  140  foot  brackets  ... 

45 

52 

140  to  150  foot  brackets  

50 

58 

Over  150  foot  brackets. 

55 

65 

F.  o.  b.  factory,  freight  equalized  with  nearest  factory. 
The  cut  size  prices  do  not  include  A  B  sizes  or  their  multiples. 
For  three-sixteenths  inch,  15  per  cent  to  be  added,  and  for  special  thickness  (other 
than  three-sixteenths  inch),  three-eighths  inch  and  five-sixteenths  inch,  inclusive,  10 
per  cent  to  be  added  to  the  above  prices. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

STANDARD  PLATE  GLASS  Co. 
Average  price,  30.22  cents  per  square  foot. 


860 


TARIFF   HEARINGS. 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

AMERICAN  PLATE  GLASS  Co., 

Kane,  Pa.,  April  24,  1911. 

GENTLEMEN:  All  stock  sheets  up  to  12  square  feet  will  be  sold  in  ranges  and  brackets 
as  below,  and  at  prices  stated,  until  further  advised: 


Eange. 

Bracket. 

Price. 

12/19by  12/19                

1  foot  to  2  feet  8  inches  

Per  square 
foot. 
$0.15 

1  foot  to  2  feet  8  inches  

.18 

2  feet  8  inches  to  4  feet  

.22 

12/19  by  20/61 

4  feet  to  5  feet  

.26 

5  feet  to  7  feet  

.35 

7  feet  to  12  feet  

.36 

12/19  by  62/12 

fo  feet  to  7  feet  

.36 

\7  feet  to  12  feet  
r2  feet  8  inches  to  4  feet  

.37 
.22 

20/29  by  20/29  

J4  feet  to  5  feet     

.25 

lo  feet  to  7  feet  

.34 

20/29by30/37  .                

(4  feet  to  5  feet  

.25 

20/29  by  38/12     . 

\5  feet  to  7  feet  
(5  feet  to  7  feet  

.36 
.36 

30/39  by  30/39  

\7  feet  to  12  feet  
15  feet  to  7  feet  

.37 
.34 

30/41  by  40/12 

i\7  feet  to  12  feet  
7  feet  to  12  feet 

.36 

.38 

To  determine  bracket,  use  next  lower  even  inch  in  width  and  length  up  to  12  feet  and  the  entire  footage 
of  a  plate  will  be  charged  at  the  price  indicated  by  the  bracket  thus  indicated. 

All  brackets  above  12  feet  will  be  the  same  as  heretofore,  allowing  a  plate  containing  6  inches  above  the 
bracket  to  be  applied  in  the  lower  bracket. 

All  crops  will  be  charged  for  at  the  lowest  price  indicated  for  the  bracket. 


25  to  50  feet... 
50  to  100  feet.. 
100  to  120  feet. 
120  to  130  feet. 
130  to  140  feet. 


Regular  stock,  not  in  above  ranges. 


140  to  150  feet.,. 
150  to  160  feet... 
160  to  180  feet... 
180  to  200  feet... 
200  to  220  feet... 
220  to  240  feet.. 


.40 

.42 
.44 
.46 
.48 


).  50 
.52 
.54 
.62 
.66 
.70 


Bracket  percentages  for  carloads  of  stock  sheets. 


1  foot  to  2  feet  8  inches 

2  feet  8  inches  to  4  feet 

4  to  5  feet 

5  to  7  feet 

7  to  12  feet...  15 


Per  cent. 
4 
4 

...        2 

8 


Per  cent. 

12  to  25  feet 18 

25  to  50  feet 22 

50  to  100  feet 24 

100  to  120  feet..  3 


Average  price,  37.45  cents  per  square  foot. 


100 


The  Belgian  manufacturer  exports  over  90  per  cent  of  his  product.  Having  no 
home  market,  he  can  not  "dump"  a  surplus  here  or  anywhere  else. 

Cheap  European  glass  is  not  imported  into  the  United  States  at  all,  as  will  be  con- 
firmed by  a  glance  at  the  value  per  unit  of  the  importations.  Plate  glass  in  sizes  from 
16  by  24  to  24  by  30  can  be  bought  in  Belgium  at  15  or  16  cents  per  foot,  but  the  im- 
portations in  these  sizes  consist  of  glass  of  25  or  30  per  cent  higher  value. 

The  fact  is  that  the  importations  consist  of  expensive  glass,  bought  entirely  by 
reason  of  its  quality  and  not  on  account  of  low  price.  This  is  not  only  true  to-day  but 
has  always  been  true. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


861 


PARAGRAPHS   101-102— PLATE   GLASS. 

PROGRESS   OP  AMERICAN   PLATE-GLASS   MANUFACTURE. 

In  round  figures  the  production  in  1890  was  9,000,000  feet;  in  1900,  17,000,000 
feet;  in  1904,  27,000,000  feet;  in  1910,  47,000,000  feet;  to-day,  over  50,000,000  feet. 

There  were  3  manufacturers  in  1900,  10  in  1904,  12  to-day.  There  have  been  no 
bankruptcies  or  receiverships  during  this  period. 

The  greatest  increase  was  1904  to  1910—20,000,000  feet  of  production.  The  two  new 
factories  established  during  this  period  account  for  5,000,000  or  6,000,000  feet.  The 
remaining  14,000,000  feet  represents  extensions  and  improvements  made  by  the 
previously  existing  plants.  That  is,  the  increased  production  is  not  due  to  outsiders 
entering  the  business,  but  represents  additional  investment  by  those  already  engaged 
in  it. 

We  submit  that  this  is  not  a  picture  of  a  languishing  industry. 

FREIGHTS. 

Comparatiie  carload  rates  in  cents  per  hundred  pounds. 


From  American  factories. 

From  Belgian  factories. 

Pittsburgh 
district. 

Toledo. 

St.  Louis 
(Valley  Park). 

Via  Atlantic 
seaboard  ports. 

Via  New 
Orleans. 

Class. 

Class. 

Class. 

Class. 

Class. 

Third. 

Fourth. 

Third. 

Fourth. 

Third. 

Fourth. 

Third. 

Fourth. 

Third. 

Fourth. 

Atlanta  

95 
27 
33 
22 
30 
26 
152$ 
26 
34 
28$ 
75 
79 
30 
10 
37J 
150 

73 
18 
24 
14* 
21 
18 
118$ 
18 
24 
19i 
53 
61 
21 
8 
26 
150 

100$ 
36 
44 
23 
23$ 
22$ 
145$ 
12 
30 
23$ 
65* 
79 
39 
23 
30$ 
150 

78 
24$ 
81| 
16 
16 
15 
113i 
9 
21 
16 
48} 
61 
27J 
16 
21J 
150 

95 
58$ 
66$ 
40$ 
29$ 
28$ 
115 
33$ 
21 
27 
35 
65 
61$ 
40$ 
3 
150 

75 
41 
48 
29$ 
23 
20$ 
92 
24$ 
16 
19$ 
27 
50 
44 
29$ 
3 
150 

113$ 

113$ 

Baltimore  

35$ 
35$ 
55$ 
75 
69$ 
137$ 

71$ 
102$ 

35$ 
35$ 
46$ 
59$ 

111$ 
51$ 
53$ 
57$ 
85$ 

Best  on  

Buffalo  

Chicago  

63$ 
57$ 
121$ 

52$ 
47$ 
95$ 

Cincinnati  

Denver  

Detroit  :  

E  vansville  

Indianapolis  

Kansas  Cit  v  

21 

78$ 
35$ 

New  Orleans  

New  York  

32$ 
55$ 
83$ 
161$ 

32$ 
45$ 
65$ 
161$ 

Pittsburgh 

St.  Louis  

73$ 
161$ 

60$ 
161$ 

San  Francisco  

Plate  glass  takes  third  or  fourth  class  rate  in  carload  lots  (eastern  classification), 
according  to  the  size  of  the  package. 

Rates  from  Belgian  factories  are  Antwerp  rates  plus  the  rate  from  the  factories  to 
Antwerp,  which  is  13  francs  per  1,000  kilos,  or  about  11£  cents  per  hundredweight. 
From  other  European  producing  centers  the  rates  are  much  higher. 

PARAGRAPH   103. 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  silvered,  cylinder  and  crown  glass,  silvered,  and 
looking-glass  plates,  exceeding  in  size  one  hundred  and  forty-four  square 
inches  and  not  exceeding  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  square  inches, 
eleven  cents  per  square  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  seven  hundred 
and  twenty  square  inches,  thirteen  cents  per  square  foot;  all  above  that, 
twenty-five  cents  per  square  foot:  Provided,  That  no  looking-glass  plates  or 
plate  glass,  silvered,  when  framed,  shall  pay  a  less  rate  of  duty  than  that 
imposed  upon  similar  glass  of  like  description  not  framed,  but  shall  pay  in 
addition  thereto  upon  such  frames  the  rate  of  duty  applicable  thereto  when 
imported  separate. 
See  Joseph  Auerbach,  page  835. 


862  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  105-108— SPECTACLES,  LENSES,  ETC. 

PARAGRAPH   104. 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,  and  cylinder,  crown,  or 
.    common  window  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,  polished  or  unpolished,  when 
bent,  ground,  obscured,  frosted,  sanded,  enameled,  beveled,  etched,  em- 
bossed, engraved,  flashed,  stained,  colored,  painted,  ornamented,  or  deco- 
rated, shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  five  per  centum  ad  valorem  in  addition  to 
the  rates  otherwise  chargeable  thereon. 
See  Joseph  Auerbach,  page  835. 

PARAGRAPH  105. 

Spectacles,  eyeglasses,  and  goggles,  and  frames  for  the  same,  or  parts 
thereof,  finished  or  unfinished,  valued  at  not  over  forty  cents  per  dozen, 
twenty  cents  per  dozen  and  fifteen  per  centum  ad  valorem;  valued  at  over 
forty  cents  per  dozen  and  not  over  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  dozen,  forty-five 
cents  per  dozen  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  valued  at  over  one  dollar 
and  fifty  cents  per  dozen,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  106. 

Lenses  of  glass  or  pebble,  molded  or  pressed,  or  ground  and  polished  to  a 
spherical,  cylindrical,  or  prismatic  form,  and  ground  and  polished  piano  or 
coquill  glasses,  wholly  or  partly  manufactured,  with  the  edges  ungrouud, 
forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  if  with  their  edges  ground  or  beveled,  ten 
cents  per  dozen  pairs  and  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  107. 

Strips  of  glass,  not  more  than  three  inches  wide,  ground  or  polished  on  one 
or  both  sides  to  a  cylindrical  or  prismatic  form,  including  those  used  in  the 
construction  of  gauges,  and  glass  slides  for  magic  lanterns,  forty-five  per 
centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  108. 

Opera  and  field  glasses,  telescopes,  microscopes,  photographic  and  projec- 
tion lenses  and  optical  instruments,  and  frames  or  mountings  for  the  same; 
all  the  foregoing  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  forty-five  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

SPECTACLES,  LENSES,  ETC. 

STATEMENT    OF    CHANGING    M.    WELLS,    ON   BEHALF    OF   THE 
AMERICAN  OPTICAL  CO.,  SOUTHBRIDGE,  MASS. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer, 
please. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Ch aiming  M.  Wells,  vice  president  of  the  American 
Optical  Co.,  Southbridge,  Mass. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  To  which  paragraph  do  you  desire  to  address 
yourself  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  To  schedule  B,  paragraph  105,  relating  to  spectacles, 
eyeglasses,  goggles,  and  frames  for  the  same;  schedule  B,  section 
1 06,  Lenses  of  glass  or  pebble. 

Schedule  B,  section  107,  strips  of  glass,  not  more  than  3  inches 
wide,  ground  or  polished  on  one  or  both  sides  to  a  cylindrical  or 
prismatic,  form. 

Free  list,  section  577,  glass  plates  or  discs,  rough  cut  or  unwrought, 
for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  optical  instruments,  spectacles,  and 
eyeglasses,  and  suitable  only  for  such  use. 

Our  company  is  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  optical  goods, 
such  as  spectacles,  eyeglasses,  goggles,  test  cases,  lenses,  mountings, 
and  cases  for  glasses. 

The  manufacturing  end  of  the  optical  industry  as  applied  to 
spectacles  and  eyeglasses  in  this  country  is  carried  on  by  from  25  to 


SCHEDULE  B.  863 

PARAGBAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,  SENSES,   ETC. 

30  firms  or  companies,  and  the  statements  herein  set  down  have  come 
as  a  result  of  our  experience  in  our  own  lines,  and  of  our  intercourse 
with  other  dealers  in  our  own  and  kindred  trades. 

The  spectacle  and  eyeglass  manufacturing  plants  are  mainly 
located  in  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecti- 
cut, New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Michigan,  and  the  following  are 
rough  estimates  of  their  extent : 

The  capital  involved  about  $7,500,000. 

The  wages  paid  annually,  about  $4,000,000. 

The  annual  product,  about  $8,500,000. 

This  applies  only  to  spectacles  and  eyeglasses  and  does  not  include 
the  whole  optical  art,  which  covers  telescopes,  opera  glasses,  camera 
lenses,  and  scientific  instruments,  etc. 

Our  business  was  begun  in  a  small  way,  and  started  in  Southbridge, 
Mass.,  in  1833.  Our  average  net  profit  for  the  last  5  years  does  not 
equal  10  per  cent  of  our  annual  turnover. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ?  Ten  per  cent  of  your 
sales  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  is  your  capital  I 

Mr.  WELLS.  Our  capital  is  $2,100,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  do  your  sales  amount  to  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Our  sales  are  about  $2,800,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  it  is  about  12  to  14  per  cent  of  your  capital,  on 
the  average  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  About  that;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Two  millions  of  capital.  You  engage  in  business  in 
which  the  annual  sales  are  only  about  two  millions  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  That  is  very  close,  I  think;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Proceed. 

Mr.  WELLS.  The  main  development  of  our  business  has  taken  place 
hi  the  last  25  years,  because  of  the  increase  in  demand  for  optical 
goods,  though  until  a  comparatively  recent  period  the  optical  busi- 
ness as  a  business  amounted  to  practically  nothing. 

There  is  no  trust  or  combination  among  the  manufacturers  or  any 
agreement  to  fix  the  prices,  regulate  output  or  divide  territory.  The 
prices  are  regulated  by  open  and  active  competition  existing  in  the 
business.  There  is  no  overcapitalization  of  the  various  concerns  in 
the  trade.  The  competition  is  open  and  active.  The  business  in 
Southbridge  was  built  up  very  largely  during  my  father's  lifetime. 
He  came  to  Southbridge  45  years  ago  as  a  boy  from  the  farm  to  learn 
the  trade  of  spectacle  maker.  At  that  time,  there  were  11  men 
in  the  shop.  The  shop  was  called  the  "Spec"  shop,  and  the  town 
to-day,  in  manufacturing  New  England,  is  Known  as  "Spectown." 

The  condition  of  our  employees  has  steadily  improved,  the  hours 
of  labor  have  been  decreased  from  60  hours  to  54  hours  a  week  for 
women,  and  55  hours  a  week  for  men,  and  the  wages  have  been 
steadily  increasing.  We  pay  from  two  to  four  times  as  high  wages  as 
paid  for  the  same  classes  of  work  in  Franco  and  Germany,  our  prin- 
cipal foreign  competitors.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  about  90  per 
cent  of  the  cost  of  production  of  the  larger  portion  of  optical  goods 
is  labor  cost,  the  duties  can  not  be  reduced  without  endangering 
employment  and  wages,  and  we,  therefore,  believe  that  a  duty  is 


864  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS  105-108— SPECTACLES,  LENSES,  ETC. 

absolutely  essential  to  equalize  the  labor  conditions  at  home  and 
abroad. 

The  prices  of  bur  product  have  not  been  increased,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  due  to  improved  methods  and  domestic  and  foreign  com- 
petition, they  have  been  repeatedly  reduced  and  in  the  last  10  years, 
particularly  on  lines  wherein  the  greatest  demand  exists,  the  prices 
have  in  many  cases  been  reduced  about  50  per  cent.  We  are  selling 
to-day  better  goods  in  some  classes  for  $3.50  a  dozen  than  were  sold 
10  years  ago  for  $7.50  a  dozen. 

In  regard  to  foreign  competition,  we  find  that  we  can  not  compete 
abroad  with  foreign-made  goods  on  our  standard  lines  generally. 
Our  exportation  business  is  only  a  small  percentage  of  our  business, 
being  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  whole,  and  is  wholly  due  to  the 
superiority  of  our  goods  in  certain  styles  and  qualities.  As  stated, 
we  are  able  to  export  only  certain  lines  of  our  goods.  These  are  the 
new  goods  which  we  are  constantly  developing  to  keep  up  to  date, 
those  which  are  a  little  ahead  of  the  foreign  manufacturers,  and  are 
in  the  nature  of  novelties,  which  our  foreign  competitors  are  quick 
to  seize  upon  and  imitate.  The  business  of  our  foreign  competitors 
has  been  developed  and  unproved,  like  our  own.  These  foreign 
manufacturers  maintain  a  strict  system  of  espionage  in  this  country 
on  ah1  our  lines,  watching  our  new  styles  and  reporting  them  back 
to  their  home  countries  as  soon  as  we  put  them  on  the  market. 
These  styles  they  imitate  with  their  cheaper  labor.  They  also 
import  from  this  country  tools  and  machinery  for  manufacturing 
these  goods  from  the  same  processes  that  we  use  here.  Therefore, 
they  would  be  able,  were  it  not  for  the  duties,  in  view  of  then*  much 
cheaper  labor  cost  of  production,  to  place  these  goods  into  our  mar- 
kets at  a  price  cheaper  than  we  could  produce  them  and  of  inferior 
quality. 

It  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  a  manufacturer  in  this  country 
to  make  these  goods  at  foreign  cost,  for  the  reason,  as  stated,  that  the 
item  of  labor  of  manufacture  of  spectacles  and  eyeglasses  is  from  85 
to  90  per  cent  of  their  cost,  and  the  wages  of  skilled  mechanics  abroad 
average  from  one-fourth  to  one-third  the  amount  the  same  skilled 
mechanics  command  in  this  country.  The  difference  between  un- 
skilled labor  abroad  and  here  is  still  greater  in  many  instances. 
Women  and  girls  working  on  goods  of  this  kind  in  Germany  and 
France  receive  only  from  $1  to  $2  a  week,  while  in  this  country  the 
same  class  of  labor  can  not  be  procured  less  than  from  $5.50  to  $9.50 
a  week,  and  some  a  good  deal  more. 

The  consumer  would  not  profit  by  a  reduction,  as  might  be  sup- 
posed. This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  only  a  small  proportion  of  the 
total  price  paid  by  the  consumer  for  these  goods  is  for  the  goods 
themselves.  Eyeglasses  and  spectacles  are  instruments  involving 
scientific  and  physical  qualities,  which  makes  it  impossible  to  sell 
them  as  other  goods  are  sold.  In  the  first  place  the  eve  of  the  patient 
must  be  examined  by  one  skilled  in  refraction  to  determine  the  optical 
needs  of  the  eye.  After  this  is  determined  the  eyeglasses  or  spectacles 
must  be  fitted  to  the  facial  requirements  of  the  patient.  This  work  is 
done  by  professional  oculists,  optometrists,  and  opticians.  Therefore 
the  retailer's  charge  is  principally  for  professional  and  personal 


SCHEDULE  B.  865 

PARAGRAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,    ETC. 

services,  varying  in  accordance  with  the  skill  and  reputation  of  the 
prescribing  oculist  or  optician.  A  difference  of  one  or  two  dollars  a 
dozen  on  a  manufacturing  price  would  probably  not  affect  the  price 
which  the  consumer  would  pay  for  the  goods.  On  the  other  hand, 
were  the  duties  on  these  lines  reduced,  the  domestic  manufacturers 
could  only  meet  foreign  competition  by  reducing  wages  and  quality. 
In  the  long  run  the  consumer  would  suffer,  in  that  the  high  standard 
and  excellence  of  our  goods  would  be  reduced  to  the  detriment  both 
of  the  trade  and  of  the  general  public. 

We  believe  that  unless  the  present  schedule  on  these  items  be 
maintained,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  that  an  importation  from 
foreign  sources  would  increase  to  such  an  extent  that  it  would  be 
practically  impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  them.  We  believe  that 
such  an  increase  and  importation  would  tend  to  reduce  the  standard 
of  excellence  which  has  been  built  up  in  this  line  of  goods.  We  also 
believe,  as  stated  above,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  practically  all  of  the 
cost  of  production  is  a  labor  cost,  and  that  as  the  rates  of  wages  at 
home  are  two  or  three  times  as  high  as  those  paid  for  the  same  classes 
of  work  abroad,  that  the  present  schedule  is  scientifically  based  and 
should  not  be  decreased,  as  it  would  seem  to  hold  about  the  correct 
ratio,  which  ratio  is  as  representative  now  as  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

Paragraph  577  of  the  free  list  relates  to  glass  plates  or  disks,  rough 
cut  or  unwrought,  for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  optical  instruments, 
spectacles  or  eyeglasses,  and  suitable  only  for  such  use. 

This  section  covers  the  rough  stock  from  which  we  make  lenses. 
This  stock  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  made  in  this  country.  It  is 
therefore  necessary  that  it  should  be  kept  on  the  free  list,  as  it  covers 
the  raw  material  from  which  we  produce. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Mr.  Wells,  I  notice  that  there  has  been  no  change  in 
the  rate  of  duty  on  your  articles  in  the  last  three  revisions  of  the 
tariff;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  you  are  right;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  long  has  it  been  since  the  present  duty  was  first 
placed  on  your  goods  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  which  tariff  did  it  first  appear  as  it  is  now? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  can  not  tell  you  that  exactly,  and  I  have  been 
engaged  in  the  business  over  20  years. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  you  now  better  able  to  compete  with  foreign 
manufacturers  than  you  were  20  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No  better. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Why  not? 

Mr.  WELLS.  They  have  improved  in  their  methods  about  as  fast 
as  we  have,  and  perhaps  faster.  I  do  not  think  their  wages  have 
advanced  as  fast  as  the  xvages  of  the  American  workman. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  long  ago  was  it  that  your  father  started  this 
business  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Forty-five  years  ago. 

Mr.  PALMER.  He  began  as  a  workman  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  He  began  as  a  workman.  He  came  into  the  factory 
45  years  ago,  and  he  learned  the  trade  of  spectacle  maker. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  the  same  factory  which  later  developed  into  your 
\'  manufacturing  plant? 

7S959C — VOL  1 — lo 55 


866  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,    LENSES,   ETC. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir.     At  that  time  there  were  11  employees. 

Mr.  PALMER.  He  was  one  of  them  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  He  became  one  of  them  after  he  learned  the  trade  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  then  he  bought  out  the  plant  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir.  He  was  not  a  stockholder  for  a  number  of 
years,  but  he  was  advanced,  first  as  foreman  and  then  as  superin- 
tendent, and  finally  purchased  some  of  the  stock,  and  he  became 
a  stockholder. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  did  he  originally  invest  in  the  company  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  $4,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  is  the  capital  of  your  company  now  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  is  $2,100,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  surplus  has  it  ?  How  much  surplus  does 
it  carry  on  its  books  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  should  say  we  have  about  $200,000  surplus  at  the 
present  time.  (This  is  cash  on  hand ;  see  supplemental  statement.) 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  that  your  total  capital,  according  to  your  books, 
is  a  matter  of  $2,100,000  now? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Capital  and  surplus. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  it  widely  held  and  generally  distributed,  or  is  it 
owned  by  your  family  ?  I  am  referring  to  your  capital  stock. 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  is  owned  principally  by  our  family. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  any  sales  taken  place  lately  of  your  capital 
stock  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  is  it  worth  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  should  think  the  capitalization  is  a  fair  basis  of  value. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  dividends  have  you  been  paying? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  pay  about  $30,000  a  year  in  dividends. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  per  cent  dividends  do  you  pay? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  have  just  recapitalized  our  business,  so  that  I  have 
not  figured  the  percentage. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  have  you  recapitalized  it? 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  was  formerly  a  Massachusetts  corporation  of 
$00,000  capital.  That  would  be  a  50  per  cent  dividend  under  the  old 
arrangement. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Yes. 

Mr.  WELLS.   Xow  it  is  a  voluntary  association. 

Mr.  PALMER.  With  two  millions  of  capital? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Whore  did  the  difference  between  the  $60,000  and 
$2,000.000  come  from? 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  is  represented  by  the  value  of  the  plant  itself. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is.  accumulated  profits? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes;  that  have  been  put  back  into  the  business  and 
also  new  additional  capital. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Which  you  and  your  father  before  you  have  earned 
right  there  in  the  shop  t 

Mr.  WELLS.   Yes,  sir. 


SCHEDULE   B.  867 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Before  this  large  increase  of  capital  from  $60,000  to 
$2,000,000  you  were  paying  50  per  cent  dividends? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir;  50  per  cent  on  $60,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  On  $60,000  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  are  paying  $30,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  suppose,  with  the  exception  of  $4,000,  all  of  that 
$60,000  was  accumulated  profit,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Did  you  not  say  that  your  father  had  put  $4,000  in 
the  plant  when  he  went  into  it  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir;  but  other  people  put  in  money  besides  him. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  that  there  is  in  your  business  $60,000  of  actual 
cash  money  invested  ? 

Mr.  WTELLS.  There  is  a  good  deal  more  than  that  invested,  but  that 
was  the  original  capital  stock. 

Mr.  PALMER.  And  the  rest  of  it  as  represented  bv  your  capital  and 
surplus  is  accumulated  profit? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes;  what  is  not  new  capital  is  profits  accumulated 
and  put  back  into  the  business  over  a  period  of,  say,  45  years. 

Mr.  PALMER.  The  only  new  money  that  was  put  into  the  plant 
amounted  to  $60,000  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No;  I  am  mistaken  in  regard  to  that.  I  think  there 
was  $30,000  more  put  in— $90,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  think  it  is  $90,000  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Then,  when  you  were  paying  a  dividend  of  $30,000, 
you  were  earning  and  receiving  33$  per  cent  on  the  actual  money 
which  had  been  put  into  the  plant  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Tnat  $30,000  was  added  only  two  years  ago,  just 
before  we  went  into  a  voluntary  association. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  that  all  the  time  that  you  were  paying  $30,000  a 
year  dividends,  the  capital  stock  was  actually  $60,000  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Nominal  capital  was  $60,000. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Or  50  per  cent  was  the  amount  of  the  profit  which  you 
were  receiving  on  the  money  actually  invested. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir.  But  the  amount  of  money  invested  greatly 
exceeded  $60,000.  Of  course  there  were  years  when  there  were 
more  dividends  paid. 

Mr.  PALMER.  More  than  that?     How  much  did  the  dividends  run? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  there  were  some  years  when  100  per  cent  was 
paid  on  the  original  capitalization. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Did  it  ever  run  above  a  hundred  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not  think  so.     That  was  15  years  ago  or  more. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  from  50  to  100  per  cent  considered  a  fair  manu- 
facturer's profit  up  in  that  section  of  manufacturing  New  England? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  would  not  consider  it  was  any  such  profit  as  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  It  was  real  money  which  you  got  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  On  the  capital  stock  it  would  be  100  per  cent;  but 
considering  the  value  of  the  plant  at  that  time — 

Mr.  PALMER.  But  you  were  paying  from  50  to  100  per  cent  on  the 
amount  of  money  actually  invested  and  at  the  same  time  accumulat- 
ing profits  by  way  of  surplus,  which  subsequently  amounted  to 
$2,000,000,  and  that  made  it  possible  for  you  to  reconvert  that  into 


868  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

an  enlarged  capital  stock  of  $2,100,000,  on  which  you  are  now  earning 
12  per  cent  or  thereabouts,  as  I  understand  you.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir;  we  are  not  earning  12  per  cent,  and  your 
statement  is  not  correct,  the  $2,100,000  includes  $300,000  of  new 
cash  added  two  years  ago.  The  difference  between  $60,000  and 
$1,800,000,  which  is  $1,740,000,  represents  additions  from  earnings 
equal  to  less  than  $40,000  a  year  on  the  average. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Did  you  not  say  in  your  statement  here  that  you 
were  making  10  per  cent  profit  on  your  annual  turnover? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir;  I  said  we  did  not  get  an  average  of  10  per 
cent  profit  on  our  annual  turnover. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  think  you  said  you  do  average  10  per  cent  profit  on 
your  annual  turnover. 

Mr.  WELLS.  You  misunderstood  me.  At  least,  I  did  riot  intend 
to  say  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  think  your  written  brief  says  that:  "Our  average 
net  profit  does  not  equal  10  per  cent  of  your  annual  turnover." 

By  that  you  mean  it  is  a  little  less  than  10  per  cent;  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  That  means  it  is  less  than  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  PALMER.  A  little  less  than  10  per  cent,  you  mean,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No.  I  do  not  know  just  how  much  less.  It  averages 
less  than  that. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Your  annual  turnover  is  several  hundred  thousand 
dollars  more  than  your  total  capitalization  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  So  that  your  profit  approximately  is  10  per  cent  of 
your  present  capital,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  should  say  not. 

Mr.  PALMER.   You  should  say  not? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Xo. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Well,  how  much  is  it? 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  is  less  than  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  PALMER.  How  much  less  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  here  that  "Our  aver- 
age net  profit  does  not  equal  10  per  cent  of  our  annual  turnover." 
What  impression  did  you  mean  to  leave  with  the  committee  as  to 
your  profit  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  .lust  what  it  says. 

Mr.  PALMER.  But  it  is  so  indefinite.     Does  it  mean  5  or  9  per  cent? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Well,  it  would  be  between  5  and  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Between  5  and  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is.  it  might  average,  say,  7i  per  cent? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes:  it  might.  It  might  be  less,  and  I  wanted  to  make 
a  conservative  statement.  (It  is  less  than  6  per  cent;  see  supple- 
mental statement.) 

Mr.  PALMER.  Your  present  capitalization  is  approximately  30  times 
the  actual  money  originally  invested  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Y"es. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Outside  of  accumulated  profits.  Therefore,  your 
earnings  at  the  present  time  on  the  actual  cash  money  invested  in 


SCHEDULE  B.  869 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES.    LENSES,    ETC. 

your  plant  are  about  30  times  7$,  or  something  over  200  per  cent;  is 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  consider  that  we  have  a  great  deal  more  than 
$60,000  or  $90,000  invested  in  our  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  know  you  do,  and  I  am  not  disputing  that  at  all, 
but  it  is  all  earned  profits  that  you  have  reinvested  in  the  company; 
is  not  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Except  $360,000.  It  represents  money  put  back  into 
the  business  and  is  the  result  of  a  lifetime  of  work. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  understand  that,  and  I  am  just  trying  to  get  the 
record  straight  as  to  the  earnings  you  are  now  receiving  on  the  actual 
cash  money  invested  in  your  plant,  and  that  is  something  over  200 
per  cent  per  annum;  is  not  that  correct? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not  follow  you  in  that;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  not  think  that  if  you  had  been  satisfied  in  the 
days  when  you  were  making  and  receiving  from  50  to  100  per  cent 
return  on  the  actual  capital  invested  with  some  less  profit  than  that, 
you  would  have  been  more  able  to  compete  with  the  foreigner,  with- 
out requiring  this  large  duty,  which  ran  from  84  to  120  per  cent 
during  all  those  years. 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  have  never  felt  that  we  could  compete  with  a  less 
dutv. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  you  mean  by  that  is  that  you  never  felt  you 
could  be  satisfied  with  a  less  profit  than  from  50  to  100  per  cent;  is 
that  it  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Well,  it  sounds  like  it  to  me.  Is  your  concern  allied 
with  any  other  optical  manufacturing  concern? 

Mr.  WELLS.  >.o,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  there  any  others  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  beg  your  pardon  ? 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  there  any  others  in  this  country? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Where  are  they  located  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  As  I  stated  in  my  remarks,  there  are  25  or  30  other 
manufacturing  concerns,  located  in  New  England,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  Michigan. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  they  had  such  a  struggle  as  you  have  had  during 
these  45  years,  to  get  along? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  they  have  had;  yes. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Just  about  the  same  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Of  course  they  are  not  as  old  in  the  business  as  we  are, 
and  they  have  not  become  as  well  established  as  we  have. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  they  earning  about  the  same  return  on  the  capi- 
tal invested  during  all  these  years  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  can  not  say. 

Mr.  PALMER.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Mr.  Wells,  you  say  that  your  father  wrent  there  45 
years  ago  to  learn  the  trade  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  long  did  it  take  him  to  learn  the  trade  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  should  say  three  or  four  years  at  that  time. 

Mr.  RAINET.  Then  he  became  a  workman  in  the  factory  ? 


870  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,    LENSES,    ETC. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Well,  he  was  a  workman  while  he  was  learning  the 
trade. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  long  did  he  remain  as  a  workman  in  the  factory 
before  he  became  interested  in  the  business  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Well,  he  always  considered  himself  a  workman.  He 
was  the  foreman  of  a  department  and  superintendent  probably  for  20 
years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  For  20  years  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes.  He  became  president  of  the  company — 45  years 
in  all. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Yes;  I  understand  that;  but  he  was  there  24  years 
before  he  became  the  president. 

Mr.  WELLS.  About  that  time ;  yes. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  At  that  time  did  he  become  interested  in  the  com- 
pany ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Before.  He  became  interested  while  he  was  still  a 
workman  in  charge  of  one  of  the  small  departments. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  When  did  he  make  the  $4,000  investment  ?  How 
long  had  he  been  a  workman  then  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  that  was  about  5  years  after  he  had  started 
in  the  business,  and  he  had  to  borrow  the  money  to  buy  the  stock. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then,  it  was  14  years  after  he  went  there  to  learn 
the  business  before  he  made  this  investment  of  $4,000? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir;  about  5  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then  this  very  satisfactory  increase  in  your  original 
investment  has  not  occurred  in  45  years,  but  in  31  years? 

Mi1.  WELLS.  Well,  the  development  has  been  mostly  in  the  last 
25  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  The  development  has  been  mostly  in  the  last  25 
years  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Twenty-five  to  thirty-five  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  while  ago  that  this  increase 
in  the  original  investment,  in  which  you  now  have  such  a  satisfac- 
tory surplus,  was  the  result  of  45  years'  labors.  However,  it  is  only 
the  result  of  25  years'  work  instead  of  45  years. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Xo;  I  should  not  say  that.  The  principal  develop- 
ment was  in  the  last  25  or  30  years,  but  the  present  business  has  been 
gradually  built  up  during  all  those  45  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  But  your  father  was  not  interested  for  about  14 
years  in  the  business  at  all. 

Mr.  'v\  ELLS.   Yes,  sir:  for  about  5  years. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.    When  he  put  in  his  §4,000? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Well,  there  were  others  interested  in  the  business, 
who  have  since'  died. 

Mr.  KAI.NEV.  When  your  father  put  the  84,000  in  the  business,  he 
did  not  figure  it  was  worth  over  $60,000,  the  business  and  plant  and 
everything  else  ( 

Mr.  WELLS.   §60,000  was  the  amount  of  the  capital  stock. 

Mr.  RAIXEY.   That  was  about  31  years  ago  when  that  happened? 

Mr.  WELLS.   Forty-three  years  ago  when  he  bought  his  stock. 

Mr.  KAIXEY.  Then,  the  increase  from  $60,000  to  over  $2,000,000 
has  occurred  in  the  last  31  years,  all  of  it,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  'WELLS.   Mostly. 


SCHEDULE   B.  871 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  And  not  45  years,  as  you  stated  a  while  ago,  but 
most  of  it  has  occurred  in  the  last  25  years.  How  many  other  fac- 
tories are  engaged  in  this  business  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  "About  25  or  30. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Where  are  they  located — in  your  neighborhood 
there  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No;  there  are  some  in  Massachusetts.  There  are 
three  other  factories  in  Southbridge,  Mass.,  where  we  are;  and  there 
are  others  in  Providence;  some  in  New  Hampshire,  some  in  Con- 
necticut, and  some  in  New  York  State,  Pennsylvania,  and  Michigan. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  they  all  put  their  products  on  the  market  at  the 
same  prices  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Very  much  the  same  price. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  that  a  coincidence  or  is  it  the  result  of  some  gentle- 
man's agreement  between  them? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No,  sir;  there  is  no  agreement. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Just  a  coincidence? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Just  free  competition,  competitive  conditions. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  But  before  they  get  into  any  active  competition  with 
each  other  they  divide  from  about  50  to  100  per  cent  on  their  hi  vest- 
ment each  year,  do  they  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  None  of  them  make  as  much  as  you  do  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  do  not  consider  we  make  very  much  money  on  the 
investment  we  have  there  to-day.  Of  course,  the  competitive  con- 
ditions— 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  men  are  employed  in  your  industry  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  How  many  men  ? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  have  about  2,400  or  2,500  employed  at  the  present 
time. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  people  are  employed  in  this  entire  indus- 
try, in  all  of  these  factories. 

"Mr.  WELLS.  I  should  think  something  around  6,000. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  What  wages  do  you  pay? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Do  you  mean  the  amount  of  our  pay  roll  ? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  No ;  the  average  amount  that  you  pay  your  men  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  think  the  average  per  man  would  be  about  $13  a  week. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  you  employ  any  women  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes.     They  would  average  $8  a  week — $7  to  $8  a  week. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  you  employ  any  children  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  No  cnildren. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  many  men  do  you  employ  as  compared  to  the 
number  of  women  that  you  employ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  We  have  in  the  neighborhood  of  639  women. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  About  one-third  of  the  total. 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  that  true  with  reference  to  the  other  factories? 
Do  they  employ  about  one-third  women  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  do  not  know  about  that.     Probably  about  the  same. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  get  all  your  raw  material  from  abroad,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Our  glass;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Where  does  it  come  from  ? 


872  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

Mr.  WELLS.  It  comes  from  Germany,  France,  and  England. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  You  have  been  getting  that  free  all  these  years  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  DIXON.  What  is  the  amount  of  your  yearly  business,  the  value 
of  your  output  per  year  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  Our  sales  this  year,  I  think,  will  be  about  $2,700,000. 

Mr.  DIXON.  What  has  been  your  average  for  the  last  10  years? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  could  not  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Approximately? 

Mr.  WELLS.  A  little  less  each  year.  I  think  the  year  before  was 
about  $2,600,000.  It  increases  about  $100,000  a  year.  That  is  an 
approximation. 

Mr.  DIXON.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Is  there  very  much  of  your  finished  product  imported 
into  this  country  from  abroad  in  volume  ? 

Mr.  WELLS.  I  would  say  there  are  quite  a  good  many.  As  to  the 
amount,  I  have  no  means  of  knowing,  except  what  is  printed  in  the 
statistical  reports. 

The  following  additional  statement  was  filed  by  the  witness: 

SOUTHBRIDGE,  MASS.,  January  16,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,   Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  On  January  9,  1913,  I  appeared  before  your  committee  and  made  a 
statement  in  behalf  of  the  American  Optical  Co.  with  relation  to  Schedule  B,  sections 
105  to  107  of  the  existing  tariff,  concerning  duties  on  optical  goods. 

At  that  time  I  was  questioned  by  Messrs.  Palmer  and  Rainey  regarding  the  capi- 
talization of  our  company  and  the  dividends  paid.  Owing  to  the  somewhat  confusing 
character  of  their  questions  and  my  unfamiliarity  with  many  of  the  matters  which 
they  inquired  for  (because  1  have  not  had  charge  of  the  finances  of  our  company,  but 
have  been  principally  concerned  with  the  selling  of  goods),  the  answers  that  I  made 
were  in  many  instances  incomplete  or  inaccurate  as  to  the  facts  and  led  them  to 
draw  wrong  inferences  which  do  us  injustice  and  may  well  tend  to  mislead  you  and 
others.  1  therefore  ask  leave  to  supplement  the  record  of  my  examination  by  the 
addition  of  this  statement,  which  I  ask  to  have  inserted  in  the  record  of  my  exami- 
nation and  particularly  submitted  to  Messrs.  Palmer  and  Rainey. 

The  facts  are  these:  The  American  Optical  Co.  was  organized  in  1869  with  a  capital 
of  $40, 000,  at  which  time  my  father  invested  $4,000  in  the  stock,  not  $10,000,  as  I 
stated.  In  1871  the  capital  stock  was  increased  to  §60,000,  and  fully  paid  in  cash. 
Between  1S7J  and  1911  there  was  added  to  the  actual  cash  invested  in  the  plant  and 
business  §1,740.000  from  earnings  in  a  period  of  41  years,  in  pursuance  of  a  conserva- 
tive policy  whi''h  looked  to  improving  and  increasing  the  size  of  the  plant  and  ita 
efficiency.  In  lull  $:>00.000  new  cash  capital  was  subscribed  and  added,  making 
the  present  capitalization  of  $2.100,000,  which  fairly  represents  the  value  of  the  invest- 
ment in  real  estate,  buildings,  machinery,  and  stock. 

The  sum  -SI, 740, 000  was  added  to  the  capital  account  from  earnings  without  increas- 
ing the  number  of  shares  of  the  nominal  capital  stock,  but  accomplished  what  in 
other  businesses  may  have  been  done  by  the  sale  of  capital  stock  to  stockholders 
who  have  reinvested  their  money. 

This  sum,  though  large  in  the  aggregate,  compared  with  the  original  capital,  repre- 
sents a  little  less  than  8  per  cent  on  the  original  investment  of  $60,000  if  added  each 
year  to  the  investment  of  the  previous  year. 

The  dividends  of  $30,000  paid  in  recent  years,  while  representing  50  per  cent  on  the 
nominal  capital  stock,  in  fact  represent  less  than  3  per  cent  on  the  money  actually 
invested  in  the  business,  and  our  present  dividend  rate  represents  less  than  2  per  cent 
on  our  money  actually  invested. 

An  analysis  of  the  figures  given  and  careful  computations  carried  through  this  period 
of  more  than  40  years  will  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this  statement.  During  the  period 


SCHEDULE  B.  873 

PARAGRAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

when  Messrs.  Palmer  and  Rainey  inquired  for  dividends  the  stock  was  held  almost 
entirely  by  men  who  worked  for  and  were  officers  of  the  company.  The  salaries  were 
small,  and  the  sums  paid  by  way  of  dividends  in  part  were  recognized  as  compensation 
for  services  rendered. 

When  I  stated  in  answer  to  a  question  that  we  had  a  surplus  of  $200,000,  I  stated 
the  amount  of  cash  on  hand.  We  have,  in  fact,  no  surplus  above  our  present  capital 
of  $2,100,000. 

Our  average  profit  on  our  total  turnover  for  the  last  five  years  is  less  than  6  per  cent, 
or  about  7  per  cent  on  our  present  capital. 

These  considerations  should  be  given  their  just  weight  and  importance.  Hasty 
calculations  attempted  on  the  witness  stand  are  not  usually  accurate  and  frequently 
mislead  both  questioner  and  witness. 

It  is  not  safe  to  base  a  present  dav  tariff  on  conditions  of  40  years  ago.  We  were  the 
first  to  start,  hence  established  before  others  entered  the  field.  To-day  competition 
has  grown  until  there  are  between  25  and  30  domestic  concerns,  and  foreign  competi- 
tion has  greatly  expanded  and  increased.  The  percentage  of  profits  has  been  steadily 
decreasing  for  years,  until  at  the  present  time  we  are  able  to  earn  only  about  7  per  cent 
on  our  present  invested  capital. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

AMERICAN  OPTICAL  Co., 
By  C.  M.  WELLS,  Vice  President. 

STATEMENT  OF  HENRY  B.  GRAVES,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 
STANDARD  OPTICAL  CO.  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES  LENS  CO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Graves,  we  have  about  half  a  dozen  more 
witnesses  and  we  would  like  to  finish  this  schedule  to-night  because 
the  iron  and  steel  schedule  is  coming  on  to-morrow.  If  we  do  not 
finish  to-day's  schedule,  it  will  have  to  go  over. 

If  the  committee  is  agreeable  I  would  like  to  hold  the  remaining 
witnesses  down,  so  that  they  may  all  take  about  10  minutes.  We 
have  about  a  half  dozen  more  witnesses,  and  I  would  like  to  get 
through  them  to-night. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  think  we  had  better  go  on  and  see  what  develops. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  representing  the 
Standard  Optical  Co.,  of  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  manufacturers  of  spectacles 
and  eyeglass  frames,  mountings  and  machinery  used  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  spectacle  and  eyeglass  lenses,  and  optical  instruments, 
and  the  United  States  Lens  Co.,  a  subsidiary  corporation,  manufactur- 
ing lenses  only,  I  submit  the  following  and  respectfully  request  that 
you  retain  the  present  rates  of  duty  on  sections  105,  106,  107,  and 
108,  as  far  as  it  applies  to  optical  instruments,  of  Schedule  B  and 
section  577  of  the  free  list. 

This  company  was  originally  organized  in  1883  and  reorganized 
in  1896,  at  which  time  it  was  compelled  to  reduce  the  par  value 
of  its  common  stock  from  $100  to  $40  per  share,  owing  to  the  fact 
that  it  had  been  unable  to  do  business  at  a  profit  up  to  that  time 
and  had  actually  lost  money,  but  since  1896  the  business  has  developed 
considerably,  as  we  added  some  new  lines  of  goods  which  were  then 
more  profitable,  and  we  now  employ  more  than  550  operatives — 
about  half  men  and  half  women  and  girls. 

Owing  to  the  necessity  of  furnishing  lenses  with  our  other  goods, 
we  invested  fully  $100,000  in  the  development  of  that  branch  of 
the  business,  employing  the  best  talent  we  could  secure  for  that 
purpose,  but  unsuccessfully,  as  the  building  and  installing  of  expensive 
machinery  and  the  training  of  operators  until  they  become  skilled 
in  their  respective  operations  requires  years  of  training. 


874  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,    LENSES,   ETC. 

In  1909  we  had  the  good  fortune  to  secure  the  services  of  a  man 
who  had  demonstrated  his  ability  to  erect  and  operate  suitable 
machinery  for  the  purpose,  and  with  his  experience  and  his  financial 
investment  in  the  United  States  Lens  Co.,  coupled  with  a  similar 
investment  by  another  manufacturer  interested  in  the  production 
of  spectacles  and  eyeglasses  to  compete  with  the  cheapest  imported 
goods,  we  started  with  fresh  hopes  to  strengthen  our  industry, 
one  of  our  most  important  aims  being  to  supply  to  the  poorest 
class  of  our  citizens  a  far  superior  article  to  those  imported,  the 
serious  injurious  effects  of  which  were  brought  before  the  committee 
in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  John  S.  Spencer,  at  its  hearing  in  1908  (see 
p.  1225,  proceedings  of  1908). 

Spectacle  lenses  are  not  a  commodity  only,  but  are  comparable 
to  medicines  or  scientific  instruments.  They  actually  prolong  the 
usefulness  of  the  wearer  and  his  earning  capacity  during  all  of  his 
life  after  40  or  45  years  if  they  are  properly  fitted  to  his  eye  and 
features.  We  are  now  employing  more  than  200  persons  in  the  lens 
factory,  as  against  57  in  1909,  most  of  whom  are  women  and  girls. 

We  are,  of  course,  hoping  to  make  our  lens  business  profitable,  but 
after  three  and  a  half  years,  during  which  we  have  perfected  our 
machinery  and  trained  our  help,  our  statement  of  July  1,  1912,  for 
the  six  months  ending  June  30,  showed  an  actual  loss  of  over  $5,000. 
We  are,  nevertheless,  confident  of  success  if  tariff  conditions  remain 
as  at  present. 

The  quality  of  our  goods  is  unsurpassed  and  can  not  be  classed  with 
any  similar  goods  made  in  Europe,  although  a  reduction  in  the  tariff 
would  undoubtedly  stimulate  the  importation  of  large  quantities  of 
lenses  made  in  Germany  and  France,  which,  although  interior  to  our 
goods,  would  displace  them  to  such  an  extent  on  the  market  that  we 
would  be  forced  to  meet  the  competition  either  by  reducing  the  quality 
of  our  goods  or  by  reducing  our  prices  to  an  extent  which  would 
jeopardize  and  might  ruin  our  industry. 

The  United  States  is  at  least  25  years  ahead  of  Europe  in  the  quality 
of  glasses  worn  by  our  citizens,  the  greater  part  of  them  being  pre- 
scribed by  oculists  and  optometrists  capable  of  prescribing  glasses 
which  exactly  fit  the  patient,  and  the  standard  of  our  prescription 
lenses  is  held  so  high  by  the  manufacturers  that  unscrupulous  parties 
can  not  procure  low-grade  lenses  to  prescribe  to  their  patients. 

Any  condition  which  would  permit  the  inferior  foreign  lenses  to 
enter  this  country  in  larger  quantities  would  be  a  great  injury  to  the 
wearers  of  spectacles,  which  could  not  be  measured  in  dollars  and 
cents. 

The  fact  thai  there  were  but  two  successful  factories  in  this  country 
until  within  the  last  six  years,  although  others  have  been  started 
and  failed,  shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  manufacture  spectacle  lenses 
of  the  American  standard  of  quality. 

The  wages  of  our  employees  have  been  increased  within  the  past 
five  years  nearly  50  per  cent,  the  average  in  1898  being  about  $8.50 
per  week  per  employee,  and  at  the  present  time  over  $12.15  per 
week  per  employee.  Our  wages  have  gone  up  nearly  10  per  cent 
since  the  passage  of  the  54-hour  law  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  New  York  hi  hi  12. 


SCHEDULE   B.  875 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES.   LENSES,   ETC. 

The  wages  paid  to  girls  in  the  optical  industry  in  Germany  is  1 
mark — 24  cents— a  day,  whereas  we  pay  10  cents  per  hour  to  per- 
fectly unskilled  girl  beginners.  Foremen  in  Germany,  with  gener- 
ations of  inherited  training  and  experience,  can  be  secured  at  $9 
a  week,  whereas  we  must  pay  similarly  skilled  men  from  $18  to  $25 
a  week. 

We  are  almost  shut  out  of  the  South  American  and  Oriental  market 
by  German  and  French  competition  and  in  free-trade  England  the 
whole  lense  industry  has  been  killed  by  this  competition. 

Our  profits  on  our  whole  output  for  the  past  five  years  has  been 
less  than  6  per  cent,  and  it  requires  the  most  rigid  economy  and 
improved  methods  of  manufacture  to  make  a  sufficient  profit  to 
pay  our  annual  dividends,  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  business  com- 
pelling us  to  tie  up  our  earnings  year  by  year  in  improved  machines, 
and  in  additional  plant  and  merchandise  as  the  business  develops, 
besides  increasing  our  new  capital  almost  yearly. 

We  are  now  endeavoring  to  raise  additional  capital  to  develop  our 
business.  And  right  here,  if  I  may  be  allowed,  I  want  to  say  just  a 
word  with  regard  to  the  testimony  this  morning  from  Mr.  George  W. 
Wells,  who  built  up  the  American  Optical  Co.  Although  it  started 
with  small  capital,  by  the  closest  economy  in  the  business  as  well  as 
in  his  living,  by  a  very  high  grade  of  mechanical  organizing  and  busi- 
ness ability,  he  was  able  to  develop  a  plant  and  stock  of  goods  equal 
to  their  present  capital,  while  others  totally  failed,  almost  inducting 
ourselves.  He  is  my  strongest  competitor,  but  I  am  very  glad  to 
bear  that  testimony. 

In  my  brief  I  state  our  percentage  of  profit  as  6  per  cent.  I  can 
be  a  little  more  exact,  if  it  is  desired.  In  1908  our  percentage  of 
profit  was  4.4  per  cent;  in  1909,  3.5  per  cent;  in  1910,  4.6  per  cent; 
m  1911,  6  per  cent;  and  in  1912,  while  our  statement  is  not  yet  pre- 
pared, approximately  it  is  6.4  per  cent. 

During  the  past  18  months,  which  has  been  the  most  prosperous 
in  our  history,  our  net  earnings  have  been  produced  largely  through 
the  manufacture  of  our  optical  machinery,  all  of  which  is  covered 
by  United  States  patents,  and  in  special  styles  of  eyeglasses,  which 
are  also  covered  by  patents. 

Our  other  departments,  in  which,  in  fact,  the  greater  part  of  our 
capital  is  invested,  do  not  show  earnings  in  proportion  to  the  invest- 
ment, owing  to  the  keen  competition  to  which  we  are  subjected,  and 
to  the  rapidly  increasing  scale  of  wages,  and  the  steady  reduction 
in  selling  prices  occasioned  by  our  competition.  A  department 
which  showed  good  earnings  in  1907  and  1908  to-day  is  barely  self- 
supporting.  At  the  same  time  these  comparatively  unproductive 
departments  enable  us  to  dispose  of  our  other  goods  on  which  there 
is  a  better  profit,  and  on  which  we  can  secure  better  prices  owing  to 
the  fact  that  they  are  covered  by  patents. 

The  least  productive  department,  that  in  which  our  cheap  metal 
goods  are  manufactured,  has  never  shown  a  profit,  and  that  in  which 
our  gold  and  gold-filled  goods  are  manufactured  and  in  which  nearly 
half  of  our  capital  is  invested  has  been  reduced  very  greatly  within 
the  past  five  years  owing  to  the  reduction  in  selling  prices  and 
increased  wages. 


876  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,    LENSES,    ETC. 

Both  of  these  departments  would  be  seriously  injured,  if  indeed  we 
would  be  able  to  maintain  them  at  all,  if  we  were  subjected  to  the 
competition  of  foreign-made  goods,  which  would  both  reduce  the 
prices  which  we  receive  for  our  goods  and  compel  us  to  make  a  lower 
quality  of  goods  than  we  are  now  making  to  meet  the  foreign  com- 
petition. 

Our  exports  amount  to  about  5  per  cent  of  our  output  and  a  large 
part  consists  of  our  patented  machinery. 

We  have  unquestionably  lost  money  on  the  other  business  we  have 
done  hi  Europe,  as  it  has  been  mostly  in  goods  made  especially  for 
that  market,  and  so  far  we  have  not  been  able  to  sell  in  large  enough 
quantities  or  high  enough  prices  to  enable  us  to  manufacture  and  sell 
at  a  profit.  Our  only  hope  in  that  market  is  slowly  to  educate  the 
retail  trade  to  appreciate  American  quality,  demand  American  goods, 
and  pay  American  prices. 

In  conclusion,  I  ask  you  to  at  least  maintain  the  present  rate  of 
duties  on  the  items  in  Schedule  "B"  covering  our  line  of  manufacture. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions.  You 
are  engaged  in  precisely  the  same  kind  of  business  as  the  American 
Optical  Co.,  which  was  represented  here  this  morning  by  Mr.  Wells  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Practically  so.  They  make  two  or  three  lines  which 
we  do  not  make,  which  are  not  very  important. 

Mr.  PALMER.  They  are,  as  I  understand  you,  your  chief  competitor 
in  this  country? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  But  you  have  very  generously  stated  that  the  reason 
for  the  phenomenal  success  of  that  company  was  to  be  found  in  the 
efficient,  skillful,  and  economic  management  of  the  plant  by  Mr.  Wells 
and  his  father. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Yes,  sir;  a  great  deal  of  it  was  when  prices  were  a 
good  deal  higher  than  they  are  at  present. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  assume  if  that  be  so  that  the  reason  for  those  who 
have  not  been  so  successful,  on  the  part  of  other  gentlemen  engaged  in 
the  trade,  is  that  they  did  not  exercise  the  same  skill,  efficiency,  and 
economv  in  the  operation  of  their  plants  as  was  exercised  by  Mr. 
Wells. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  They  did  not  have  any  plants.  Our  plants  were 
started  years  after  his  plant  was  a  tremendous  success. 

Mr.  PALMER.  During  the  very  years  when  you  say  you  have  been 
making  3,  4,  5.  and  6  per  cent,  Mr.  Wells  has  been  making  very  much 
larger  profits  than  that,  has  he  not? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  He  has  a  much  larger  business,  and  a  much  more 
highly  developed  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Do  you  really  think  that  in  writing  a  tariff  law  we 
ought  to  consider  conditions  made  or  existing  in  inefficient,  unskill- 
fully  managed  plants,  or  that  we  ought  to  consider  conditions  made 
in  efficient  and  skillfully  managed  plants  ?  In  other  words,  is  it  your 
theory  that  the  law  ought  to  protect  inefficiency  in  American  manu- 
facture I 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  PALMER.  If  no  duty  is  required  for  the  protection  of  a  reason- 
able amount  of  profits,  \ve  will  say  for  a  concern  so  well  managed  as 


SCHEDULE  B.  877 

PARAGRAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

the  American  Optical  Co.,  by  reason  of  its  efficient  management,  do 
you  still  think  we  ought  to  vote  a  duty  on  the  goods  in  order  to  take 
care  of  men  who  admit  that  the  reason  for  then*  comparative  failure 
is  that  they  did  not  equal  the  efficiency  of  that  plant  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  fairly  stated  question,  sir. 
You  take  the  ground  that  they  do  not  need  the  tariff,  and  that  we  do 
need  it  on  the  ground  of  inefficiency,  neither  of  which  is  correct. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  frankly  say  I  do  not  believe  any  concern  which  is 
making  the  money  Mr.  Wells  admitted  his  concern  is  making,  has 
very  much  right  to  come  here  and  ask  us  to  keep  this  tariff  rate  up  to 
the  present  figure. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  His  concern  is  making  less  than  10  per  cent  on  the 
present  capitalization,  which  is  not  excessive. 

Mr.  PALMER.  It  is  about  200  per  cent  on  the  actual  capital  invested 
in  the  company. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  I  do  not  admit  it. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Mr.  Wells  admitted  it. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  He  did  not  do  his  father  the  justice  I  am  willing  to 
do  him.  If  his  father  was  willing  for  years  to  live  economically  and 
instead  of  drawing  a  large  salary,  keep  it  in  the  business,  put  it  in 
there  and  develop  the  business,  that  was  exactly  the  same  as  if  new 
money  was  put  into  it.  If  he  had  drawn  a  large  salary,  which  he 
would  and  could  have  demanded,  if  some  one  else  had  furnished  the 
capital,  he  would  have  had  new  money  to  put  back  into  the  business; 
and  that  is  exactly  what  he  did  in  effect. 

Mr.  PALMER.  He  would  have  taken  that  increased  salary  right  out 
of  the  profits  of  the  business. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  No,  sir;  it  would  have  been  taken  out  before  the 
profits  were  shown,  because  it  was  earned.  It  is  wages,  not  profits. 
A  salary  is  not  a  profit. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  It  is  part  of  the  cost  to  produce  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  do  not  exactly  understand  that,  Mr.  Graves. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  I  say,  properly  speaking,  salaries  are  not  profits; 
they  are  part  of  the  cost  of  production. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  stated  the  amount  of  your  capital  paid  in, 
in  the  first  place,  in  this  company? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Our  company's  total  capital  stock  is  $237,000  up  to 
the  present  time. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  Have  you  ever  reduced  the  capital  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  The  par  value  of  the  common  stock  and  the  total 
common  stock  was  reduced  from  $100,000  to  $40,000  in  1898.  I  have 
been  connected  with  the  business  since  1897.  Prior  to  that  time  they 
had  been  manufacturing  a  limited  number  of  lines  and  had  actually 
lost  money.  It  was  one  of  the  first  things  I  did  to  insist  on  the  capital 
stock  being  reduced  to  the  actual  condition  of  the  business. 

Mr.  PALMER.  As  to  these  dividends  you  have  spoken  of,  on  what 
capital  were  they  declared? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  We  have  paid  6  per  cent  dividend. 

Mr.  PALMER.  On  what  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  On  our  total  capitalization  since  1896. 

Mr.  PALMER.  On  how  much  capitalization? 


878  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  On  an  increasing  capitalization  from  $90,000,  since 
which  time  we  have  added  to  our  capital  stock  three  times,  until 
the  present  tune.  Our  last  issue  of  capital  stock,  which  was  a  7  per 
cent  preferred  stock,  was  three  or  four  years  ago. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  you  ever  paid  dividends  on  that  stock  which 
you  charged  up  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  never  paid  dividends  on  that  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PALMER.  But  you  did  pay  dividends  on  what  was  left  ? 

Mr.  GRAVES.  Yes,  sir.  In  reply  to  the  suggestion  that  the  business 
has  been  inefficiently  managed,  we  have  also  built  up  a  surplus  which 
is  represented  not  in  cash  but  in  plant  of  about  $263,000,  which  is  a 
little  more  than  our  capital  stock. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  did  not  make  the  suggestion  your  business  was 
inefficiently  managed. 

Mr.  GRAVES.  I  understood  it  so. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  thought  you  had  suggested  it  in  acknowledging  the 
reason  for  the  unusual  success  of  the  American  Optical  Co. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Graves. 

GENEVA,  N.  Y.,  January  9,  191S. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIRS:  Representing  the  Standard  Optical  Co.,  of  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  manufac- 
turers of  spectacles  and  eyeglass  frames,  mountings,  and  machinery  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  spectacle  and  eyeglass  lenses  and  optical  instruments,  and  the  United  States 
Lens  Co.,  a  subsidiary  corporation,  manufacturing  lenses  only,  I  submit  the  following 
and  respectfully  request  that  you  retain  the  present  rates  of  duty  on  sections  105,  106, 
10V,  and  108  of  Schedule  B  and  section  577  of  the  free  list. 

This  company  was  originally  organized  in  1883,  and  reorganized  in  1896,  at  which 
time  it  was  compelled  to  reduce  the  par  value  of  its  common  stock  from  $100  to  $40 
per  share,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  had  been  unable  to  do  business  at  a  profit  up  to 
that  time,  and  had  actually  lost  money,  but  since  1896  the  business  has  developed 
considerably,  as  we  added  some  new  lines  of  goods  which  were  then  more  profitable, 
and  we  now  employ  more  than  550  operatoos,  about  half  men  and  half  women  and 
girls. 

Owing  to  (he  necessity  of  furnishing  lenses  with  our  other  goods,  we  invested  fully 
?  100, 000  in  the  development  of  that  branch  of  the  business,  employing  the  best  talent 
we  could  secure  for  that  purpose,  but  unsuccessfully,  as  the  building  and  installing 
of  expensive  machinery  and  the  training  of  operators  until  they  became  skilled  in 
their  respective  operations  requires  years  of  training. 

In  1909  we  had  the  good  fortune  to  secure  the  services  of  a  man  who  had  demon- 
strated his  ability  to  erect  and  operate  suitable  machinery  for  the  purpose,  and  with 
his  experience  and  his  financial  investment  in  the  United  States  Lens  Co.,  coupled 
with  a  similar  investment  by  another  manufacturer  interested  in  the  production  of 
spe  't.u'los  and  eyeglasses  to  compete  with  the  cheapest  imported  goods,  we  started 
with  fresh  hopes  to  strengthen  our  industry,  one  of  our  most  important  aims  being  to 
supply  to  the  poorest  class  of  our  citizens  a  far  superior  article  to  those  imported,  the 
serious  injurious  effects  of  which  worn  brought  before  the  committee  in  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  John  S.  Sponcer  at  its  hearing  in  190S  (see  p.  1225,  proceedings  of  1908). 

\Vo  it  re  ii"\v  employing  nmro  than  200  persons  in  the  lens  factory,  as  against  57  in 
1909,  most  of  whom  are  women  and  girls. 

We  are,  of  course,  hoping  to  make  our  lens  business  profitable,  but  after  three  and 
a  half  years,  during  which  we  have  perfected  our  machinery  and  trained  our  help,  our 
statement  of  July  1 .  1012,  for  the  six  months  ending  June  30,  showed  an  actual  loss  of 
over  S5.000. 

We  are  nevertheless  confident  of  success  if  tariff  conditions  remain  as  at  present. 

The  quality  of  our  goods  is  unsurpassed,  and  can  not  be  classed  with  any  similar 
good?  made  in  Europe,  although  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  would  undoubtedly  stimulate 


SCHEDULE   B.  879 

PARAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

the  importation  of  large  quantities  of  lenses  made  in  Germany  and  France,  which, 
although  inferior  to  our  goods,  would  displace  them  to  such  an  extent  on  the  market 
that  we  would  be  forced  to  meet  the  competition  either  by  reducing  the  quality  of 
our  goods  or  by  reducing  our  prices  to  an  extent  which  would  jeopardize  and  might 
ruin  our  industry. 

The  United  States  is  at  least  25  years  ahead  of  Europe  in  the  quality  of  glasses  worn 
by  our  citizens,  the  greater  part  of  them  being  prescribed  by  oculists  and  optometrists 
capable  of  prescribing  glasses  which  exactly  fit  the  patient,  and  the  standard  of  our 
prescription  lenses  is  held  so  high  by  the  manufacturers  that  unscrupulous  parties 
can  not  procure  low-grade  lenses  to  prescribe  to  their  patients. 

Any  condition  which  would  permit  the  inferior  foreign  lenses  to  enter  this  country 
in  larger  quantities  would  be  a  great  injury  to  the  wearers  of  spectacles,  which  could 
not  be  measured  in  dollars  and  cents. 

The  fact  that  there  were  but  two  successful  lens  factories  in  this  country  until 
within  the  last  six  years,  although  others  have  been  started  and  failed,  shows  how 
difficult  it  is  to  manufacture  spectacle  lenses  of  the  American  standard  of  quality. 

The  wages  of  our  employees  have  been  increased  within  the  past  five  years  nearly 
50  per  cent,  the  average  in  1898  being  about  $8.50  per  employee,  and  at  the  present 
time  over  $12.15  per  employee.  Our  wages  have  gone  up  nearly  10  per  cent  since  the 
passage  of  the  54  hour  law  by  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  1912. 

The  wages  paid  to  girls  in  the  optical  industry  in  Germany  is  1  mark  (24  cents)  per 
day,  whereas  we  pay  10  cents  per  hour  to  perfectly  unskilled  girl  beginners.  Foremen 
in  Germany,  with  generations  of  inherited  training  and  experience,  can  be  secured 
at  $9  a  week,  whereas  we  must  pay  similarly  skilled  men  from  $18  to  $25  a  week. 

We  are  almost  shut  out  of  the  South  American  and  Oriental  market  by  German  and 
French  competition,  and  in  free-trade  England  the  whole  lens  industry  has  been  killed 
by  this  competition. 

Out  profits  on  our  whole  output  for  the  past  five  years  has  been  less  than  6  per  cent, 
and  it  requires  the  most  rigid  economy  and  improved  methods  of  manufacture  to 
make  a  sufficient  profit  to  pay  our  annual  dividends,  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  busi- 
ness compelling  us  to  tie  up  our  earnings  year  by  year  in  improved  machines  and 
in  additional  plant  and  merchandise  as  the  business  develops,  besides  increasing  our 
capital  almost  yearly. 

During  the  past  18  months,  which  have  been  the  most  prosperous  in  our  history, 
our  net  earnings  have  been  produced  largely  through  the  manufacture  of  our  optical 
machinery,  all  of  which  is  covered  by  United  States  patents,  and  in  special  styles  of 
eyeglasses,  which  are  also  covered  by  patents. 

Our  other  departments,  in  which  in  fact  the  greater  part  of  our  capital  is  invested, 
do  not  show  earnings  in  proportion  to  the  investment  owing  to  the  keen  competition 
to  which  wo  are  subjected,  and  to  the  rapidly  increasing  scale  of  wages,  and  the  steady 
reduction  in  selling  prices  occasioned  by  our  competition.  A  department  which 
showed  good  earnings  in  1907  and  1908  to-day  is  barely  self-supporting.  At  the  same 
time  these  comparatively  unproductive  departments  enable  us  to  dispose  of  our  other 
goods  on  which  there  is  a  better  profit,  and  on  which  we  can  secure  better  prices  owing 
to  the  fact  that  they  are  covered  by  patents. 

The  least  productive  department,  that  in  which  pur  cheap  metal  goods  are  manu- 
factured, has  never  shown  a  profit,  and  that  in  which  our  gold  and  gold-filled  goods 
are  manufactured  and  in  which  nearly  half  of  our  capital  is  invested,  has  been  re- 
duced very  greatly  within  the  past  five  years  owing  to  the  reduction  in  selling  prices 
and  increased  wages. 

Both  of  these  departments  would  be  seriously  injured,  if  indeed  we  would  be  able 
to  maintain  them  at  all,  if  we  were  subjected  to  the  competition  of  foreign-made  goods, 
which  would  both  reduce  the  prices  which  we  receive  for  our  goods,  and  compel  ua 
to  make  a  lower  quality  of  goods  than  we  are  now  making  to  meet  the  foreign  com- 
petition. 

Our  exports  amount  to  about  5  per  cent  of  our  output  and  a  large  part  consists  of  our 
patented  machinery. 

We  have  unquestionably  lost  money  on  the  other  business  we  have  done  in  Europe, 
as  it  has  been  mostly  in  goods  made  especially  for  that  market  and  so  far  we  have  not 
been  able  to  sell  in  large  enough  quantities  or  high  enough  prices  to  enable  us  to  manu- 
facture and  sell  at  a  profit.  Our  only  hope  in  that  market  is  slowly  to  educate  the  retail 
trade  to  appreciate  American  quality,  demand  American  goods,  and  pay  American 
prices. 


880  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

Asking  you  to  at  least  maintain  the  present  rate  of  duties  on  the  items  in  Schedule 
"B"  covering  our  line  of  manufacture,  I  am, 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

STANDARD  OPTICAL  Co., 
UNITED  STATES  LENS  Co., 
HENRY  B.  GRAVES, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

BRIEF  OF  TILTON   OPTICAL  CO.,  IN  RE   SPECTACLE  AND  EYE- 
GLASS LENSES. 

PARAGRAPH  106. 

TILTON,  N.  H.,  January  6,  191S. 
CLERK  OP  THE  WATS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  understand  your  committee  have  appointed  January  8  as  the  day 
on  which  to  hear  arguments  regarding  the  glass  schedule,  under  which  the  product  of 
our  factory  is  classified,  and  in  which  we  are  most  vitally  interested. 

We  would  submit,  therefore,  for  the  consideration  of  your  committee  some  of  the 
reasons  which  we  believe  warrant  the  retention  of  the  present  tariff  rate. 

In  our  factory  we  manufacture  for  sale  only  spectacle  and  eyeglass  lenses.  We 
have  been  manufacturing  them  now  for  something  like  12  years.  The  profits  which 
we  have  made  have  been  small  as  compared  with  those  which  should  be  reasonably 
expected  from  a  manufacturing  plant  with  an  amount  of  capital  as  large  as  we  have 
invested  in  our  business. 

The  principal  item  of  expense  which  goes  into  the  cost  of  lens  manufacturing  is  that 
for  labor,  for  which  we  pay  a  much  higher  rate  than  prevails  abroad. 

We  pay  our  girls  and  women,  when  they  enter  our  employ  without  experience,  11 
cents  an  hour,  increasing  this  amount  as  their  ability  warrants  at  the  rate  of  about 
]  cent  per  hour  per  month,  until  we  are  paying  them  an  average  of  16  cents  per  hour. 
Some  of  the  girls  make  more  than  this  amount. 

Our  boys  (none  of  whom  are  under  15  years  of  age)  we  pay  at  the  same  rate  as  the 
girls.  Men  entering  our  employ  without  any  experience  we  pay  at  the  rate  of  16 
rents  per  hour,  increasing  them  at  the  rate  of  2  cents  per  hour  until  they  are  earning 
20  cents  per  hour.  This  usually  takes  about  two  months  before  they  are  getting  this 
standard  pay.  If  a  man  shows  exceptional  ability,  we  pay  him  more.  All  of  our  men 
have  .an  opportunity  of  earning  a  bonus  of  $1  a  week  whenever  they  produce  a  percent- 
age of  first  quality  "lenses  averaging  above  a  given  standard. 

In  the  principal  optical  centers  of  Germany,  after  three  years'  service,  men  are 
receiving  about  $6  a  week  and  girls  an  average  of  less  than  $5.  We  are  paying  our 
employees  on  an  average  about  100  per  cent  higher  than  the  rate  prevailing  there. 

In  addition  to  this  higher  rate  of  wages,  our  American  factories  maintain  a  higher 
standard  of  quality  than  is  maintained  by  the  European  manufacturers;  that  is,  the 
lenses  of  our  production  are  more  free  from  scratches  and  surface  imperfections  and 
defects  in  the  glass  than  those  made  abroad.  We  also  maintain  a  more  uniform 
standard  of  lens  thickness  and  size  of  blank,  all  of  which  add  materially  to  the  net 
cost  of  production. 

We  believe,  therefore,  that  the  rate  now  prevailing  is  just  to  our  manufacturers 
and  not  an  undue  burden  upon  the  consumer,  and  we  feel  that  a  decrease  in  the 
present  tariff  rate  would  force  our  American  manufacturers  to  drop  the  standard  of 
quality  to  that  now  maintained  by  our  European  competitors. 

This  would  be  a  rendition  very  unfair  to  the  American  consumer,  in  whose  behalf 
our  orulists  and  opticians  are  urging  an  even  higher  standard  than  that  we  are  at  the 
present  able  to  maintain. 

We  respectfully  submit  the  above  for  your  consideration,  and  remain, 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

TILTON  OPTICAL  COMPANY. 
STANTON  E.  SMITH,  General  Manager. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


881 


PARAGRAPHS   105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

STATEMENT  OF  F.  E.  HAMILTON,  ATTORNEY  FOR  THE 
TAYLOR-HOBSON  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

PARAGRAPH  106. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  paragraph  do  you  wish  to  address  yourself, 
Mr.  Hamilton? 

Mr.  HAMILTON.  Paragraph  106.  My  clients  desire  to  approve  the 
reduction  of  the  duty.  The  suggestions  made  by  them  are  contained 
in  these  briefs,  whicn  I  will  hand  to  the  clerk  and  thereby  save  the 
committee  the  necessity  of  listening  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  hand  them  to  the  stenographer  and  they 
be  printed  in  t  le  record  at  this  point. 

BRIEF   OF  PARAGRAPH   106,    SCHEDULE   B — LENSES. 

To  the  honorable  the  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

Souse  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  Taylor-Hobson  Co.,  of  New  York  City,  respectfully  requests  a 
reduction  upon  lenses  of  glass  or  pebble,  molded  or  pressed,  ground  and  polished  to 
spherical,  cylindrical,  or  prismatic  form,  and  ground  and  polished  piano  or  coquill 
glasses,  wholly  or  partly  manufactured  with  the  edges  unground,  from  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem  to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  represents  much  more  than  the  difference  between  the  cost 
of  production  at  home  and  abroad.  The  importation  of  lenses  of  very  high  quality 
only  can  meet  this  high  rate  of  duty,  and  95  per  cent  of  the  trade  in  lenses  used  on 
small  kodaks  and  moving-picture  machines  has  become  practically  a  monopoly  in 
the  hands  of  American  manufacturers  solely  on  account  of  the  above  tariff,  which  ia 
absolutely  prohibitive. 

Within  the  past  60  days  we  were  asked  to  submit  quotations  to  the  Edison  labora- 
tories at  West  Orange,  N.  J,  for  lenses  to  be  used  on  the  Home  Kinetescope  in  lota 
•of  30,000.  The  contract  was  awarded  to  one  of  our  competitors,  an  American  manu- 
facturer, at  the  following  rates: 


1A  condensing  lens,  mounted $0.  38 

IB  condensing  lens,  mounted 39 

1C  condensing  lens,  mounted 44 

1A  stereo,  lens,  mounted 42 

IB  stereo,  lens,  mounted 65 


1C  stereo,  lens,  mounted $0.  75 

1A  motion-picture  lens 1.  75 

1 A  motion-picture  lens 93 

IB  motion-picture  lens 1.  85 

1C  motion-picture  lens 2.  55 


These  figures  are  practically  the  same  that  the  goods  cost  us  to  lay  down  in  New 
York  after  a  45  per  cent  duty,  thus  clearly  proving  the  absolutely  prohibitive  char- 
acter of  the  present  duty  charge. 

This  is  only  one  instance,  which  we  could  easily  multiply,  of  our  inability  to  com- 
pete with  American  manufacturers  upon  the  prices  of  photographic  and  other  lenses, 
owing  to  the  high  rate  of  duty  under  the  Payne-Aldrich  bill,  and  it  has  become  the 
rule  with  us  to  decline  to  bid  wherever  price  is  the  determining  factor  rather  than 
high  quality. 

We  believe  that  a  reduction  of  the  present  rate  of  45  per  cent  to  20  per  cent  would 
result  in  approximately  increasing  our  business  threefold,  since  we  are  unable  to 
enter  the  field  of  moving-picture  machines  and  cameras,  the  two  largest  fields  in  the 
use  of  lenses.  Another  illustration  of  the  present  high  rate  may  be  offered  in  com- 
paring the  lens  and  shutter  used  by  the  Sears-Roebuck  mail-order  house  of  Chicago 
on  their  camera  known  as  the  "Conley." 

This  house  lists  the  lens  and  shutter  in  question  with  complete  equipment,  includ- 
ing camera,  at  $42.85.  The  same  camera,  with  an  ordinary  cheap  lens  and  shutter, 
they  list  at  $15.40,  so  that  the  difference  of  $27.45  represents  the  amount  which  Sears- 
Roebuck  &  Co.  receive  for  the  4  by  5  lens  and  shutter,  and  even  at  such  figures  they 
must  necessarily  make  a  profit.  The  house  that  manufactures  the  lens  and  shutter 
in  question  lists  the  same  at  $40.  The  only  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  that  the  present 
45  per  cent  duty  rate  protects  the  American  manufacturer  and  as  well  the  American 

78959°— VOL  1—13 56 


882  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PABAGRAPHS    105-108— SPECTACLES,   LENSES,   ETC. 

jobber  to  such  an  extent  that  an  article  listed  at  $40  can  still  be  sold  for  $27.45  and 
make  a  profit,  since  the  high  duty  rate  prohibits  the  competition  of  the  foreign  lens. 
It  is  claimed  for  the  imported  lens  that  they  are  of  better  quality  at  an  even  price 
with  that  of  the  American  manufacturer,  but  there  is  no  opportunity  of  testing  this 
question  under  the  present  exorbitant  duty  rate. 

We  respectfully  urge  the  reduction  of  the  rate  in  question  from  45  per  cent  ad  valo- 
rem to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

THE  TAYLOR-HOBSON  Co., 
By  FRANCIS  E.  HAMILTON,  Counsel, 

32  Broadway,  New  York. 
JANUARY  3,  1913. 

BRIEF  OF  BATJSCH  &  LOME  OPTICAI  CO.,  ROCHESTER,  N.  Y.,  IN 
RE  OPTICAI  INDUSTRY. 

BAUSCH  &  LOMB  OPTICAL  Co., 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  January  7,  1913. 
WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

HONORED  SIRS:  In  view  of  our  inability  to  appear  before  your  honorable  body  in 
person,  we  beg  to  present  our  arguments  relating  to  tariff  Schedule  B,  paragraphs  106, 
107,  and  108,  in  writing,  and  will  preface  the  same  with  a  general  statement  relating 
to  the  optical  industry  in  the  United  States  before  entering  into  the  subject  from 
our  own  point  of  view. 

The  industry  originated  in  Europe,  and  for  decades  American  opticians  were 
dependent  for  the  greater  share  of  their  requirements  on  this  source  of  supply.  Under 
the  protective  policy  of  our  Government,  this  condition  has  changed.  Since  1850 
considerable  development  toward  home  manufacture  has  taken  place,  until  now  few 
optical  goods  are  imported,  except  for  educational  purposes,  and  largely  for  the 
reason  that  American  ingenuity  steadily  raised  the  standard  of  perfection  in  optical 
apparatus  covering  the  various  branches  of  science,  and  to  such  an  extent  that  Euro- 
pean manufacturers  now  copy  instrumental,  methods,  and  appliances,  a  fact  well 
worthy  of  note. 

The  optical  industry  in  the  United  States  is  represented  by  about  25  manufac- 
turers with  a  capital  investment  approximating  $10,000,000,  and  employing  in  round 
numbers  10,000  people. 

The  production  of  optical  instruments  requires  not  only  skilled  labor,  but  scien- 
tific attainments  in  the  computation  of  optical  systems  for  the  great  variety  of  goods 
comprised  thereunder.  This  labor  can  only  be  obtained  and  the  skill  attained 
through  years  of  preparation,  and  it  is  only  reasonable  to  say  that  the  transfer  of 
trade  to  the  United  States  for  home  consumption  could  never  have  been  accom- 
plished without  proper  compensation  to  American  workmen  on  a  scale  comparative 
with  our  cost  of  living. 

We  have  it  from  reliable  sources  that  the  European  labor  rate  in  the  construction 
of  apparatus  of  similar  character  ranges  from  ?S  for  semiskilled  to  $12  for  skilled 
labor,  while  our  wages  range  from  $12  in  the  semiskilled  to  $18  and  more  for  skilled 
labor,  per  week.  For  our  manufactures  the  raw  material  is  the  smaller  part  of  the 
completed  cost  of  goods,  and  while  it  varies  for  different  instruments,  the  relation  i? 
about  35  per  cent  for  material  to  05  per  cent  for  labor. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  for  the  products  covered  under  the  above-enumerated 
paragraphs  is  45  per  rent  ad  valorem,  which,  if  compared  with  the  above,  assuming 
material  cost  1o  be  about  the  same  as  abroad,  does  not  properly  compensate  for  the 
difference  in  labor  rates.  For  many  reasons  it  is  important  that  this  development 
in  apparatus  lor  scientific  research  and  use  should  be  fostered  within  our  own  borders, 
and  no  encouragement  on  the  part  of  the  Government  in  the  regulation  of  its  tariff 
schedules  can  be  greater  than  to  provide  the  necessary  protection  to  American  labor, 
to  insure  the  incentive  for  even  greater  accomplishments  in  an  industry  that  may 
be  of  small  proportions  to  the  commerce  of  the  country,  but  of  great  value  to  the 
Government  itself  and  the  scientific  world. 

Any  reduction  from  the  present  tariff  rate  would  be  injurious  to  this  development, 
would  create  serious  disturbance  and  prove  a  heavy  burden  to  American  producers 
and  their  workmen,  and  we  therefore  appeal  to  your  honorable  body  to  recommend 


SCHEDULE   B.  883 

PARAGRAPH    108— LENSES,    CAMERAS,    ETC. 

that  the  existing  rate  of  duty  for  the  schedules  named  be  maintained  in  order  that 
what  has  been  accomplished  will  not  be  undone  by  any  act  that  can  but  slightly  affect 
the  revenues  of  the  Government,  but  would  retard  the  progress  of  a  growing  American 
industry. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

BAUSCH  &  LOMB  OPTICAL  Co., 
J.  J.  BAUSCH,  President. 

• 

LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 
STATEMENT  OF  G.  C.  GENNERT,  ESQ.,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  paragraph  do  you  speak  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  The  paragraph  about  which  I  wish  to  speak  is  108, 
concerning  cameras,  which  are  there  classed  as  optical  instruments. 

The  firm  I  represent  has,  since  1854,  been  engaged  in  New  York 
and  Chicago  in  the  manufacture  and  as  dealers  and  importers  of  the 
photographic  materials  in  question. 

Our  present  position  is  that  we  have  been  directly  forced,  in  order 
to  get  cameras,  to  import  the  same.  The  entire  market  in  cameras, 
as  well  as  in  all  other  photographic  materials,  is  tight  in  the  grip  of 
the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  that  owns  the  business  body  and  soul.  It 
is  undoubtedly  a  safe  and  conservative  estimate  to  say  that  upon  that 
particular  class  of  merchandise,  of  cameras,  they  produce  and  sell  at 
least  seven-eighths. 

Their  policy  is  to  sell  these  cameras,  as  they  do  with  their  other 
goods,  on  a  restrictive  policy  as  to  price  and  on  a  restrictive  policy 
as  to  persons  buying  similar  goods  of  other  independent  manufac- 
turers. For  instance,  we  can  buy  no  cameras  from  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co.,  we  can  buy  no  plates  from  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  we 
can  buy  no  films  from  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  because  we  have  had 
the  te*merity  to  sell  other  brands,  or  attempt  to  sell  other  brands, 
excepting  their  own. 

The  duty  on  cameras  is  45  per  cent  ad  valorem.  That  the  industry 
in  this  country  needs  absolutely  no  protection  is  evident  when  we  con- 
sult the  dividend  record  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  After  a  steady 
increase  in  the  last  10  years  it  finally,  in  1911  and  1912,  reached  the 
tremendous  basis  of  an  annual  dividend  of  40  per  cent  on  about 
twenty  millions  of  capital  stock. 

If  I  may  detain  you  just  long  enough,  I  want  to  read  from  a  recent 
article  in  a  photographic  trade  journal,  commenting  upon  the  Eastman 

dividends: 

i 

Eastman  Kodak  common  dividends  seem  to  be  stationary  at  40  per  cent  per  annum. 
That  is  the  amount  declared  so  far  this  year,  the  same  as  in  1911  and  1910.  In  the 
forward  march  of  net  earnings  of  this  remarkable  company  there  has  not  to  date  been 
a  single  misstep.  Profits  have  quadrupled  in  the  10  years  of  its  existence  and  are  now 
each  year  equal  to  well  over  one-half  of  the  $19,512,300  common-stock  issue. 

The  career  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  reads  like  a  page  of  financial  romance.  In 
slightly  more  than  a  decade  it  has  paid  common  shareholders  dividends  aggregating 
$249  per  share,  or  an  average  of  $23.50  annually.  The  company  is  now  selling  in  the 
market  for  about  $146,000,000— the  $6,165,700  6  per  cent  preferred  at  125  and  the 
$19,512,300  common  at  710.  Manifestly  this  huge  sum  is  far  and  away  greater  than 
the  value  of  actual  property  assets;  it  is  rather  an  expression  of  the  spectacular  earn- 
ing ability  of  the  company. 


884  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

We  are  in  a  position  that  we  can  not  get  these  cameras  except  by 
importing  them.  We  import  them.  The  imports  have  to  date  been 
so  slight  that  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  does  not  even 
furnish  any  statistics,  and  I  should  estimate  them  at  approximately 
$30,000,  whereas  the  exports  are  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1,000,000, 
not  quite  a  million  for  the  last  11  months,  but  steadily  increasing 
from  month  to  month. 

What  happens  when  we  go  out  in  the  market  and  attempt  to  sell 
our  goods  in  competition,  if  I  may  use  the  almost  amusing  word,  with 
the  photographic  trust?  What  happens  is  that  we  get  letters,  of 
which  I  hold  about  a  dozen  in  my  hand  and  have  others,  from  cus- 
tomers to  whom  we  have  shipped  our  cameras,  which  we  in  large  part 
import  from  England.  I  mention  no  names  hi  connection  with  these 
letters,  because  the  moment  the  names  were  made  public  undoubt- 
edly the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  would  refuse  to  ship  their  goods  to  the 
customer  in  question. 

The  letter  to  which  I  have  reference  now  is  as  follows : 

We  are  returning  herewith  one  Ensignette  camera,  list  $10;  one  Ensignette,  list 
$15.  Please  credit  these  to  our  account.  We  could  no  doubt  have  sold  a  large  num- 
ber of  these  cameras,  but  as  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  refuses  to  sell  us  their  product 
if  we  sold  Ensignettes,  we  are  obliged  to  discontinue  the  sale  of  them. 

I  have  one  where  even  the  following  humiliation  of  expression  is 
swallowed  by  the  retail  customer  who  had  attempted  to  buy  goods 
from  the  applicant: 

I  am  returning  via  United  States  Express  one  Ensignette  camera,  which  I  wish  you 
would  give  me  credit  for,  as  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  have  stopped  me  from  selling  it. 

That  is  not  the  exact  letter  I  had  reference  to,  but  I  do  not  lay  my 
hands  on  it  for  the  moment.  In  any  event  the  letter  contains  this 
phrase:  The  customer  writes  us,  saying:  "I  must  return  the  camera 
because  I  can  not  afford  to  incur  the  displeasure  of  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co." 

It  seems  it  is  a  very  unusual  situation  that  an  American  business 
man  must  fear  for  his  very  existence,  that  he  is  going  to  incur  the 
displeasure  of  a  company  whose  profits  seem  to  be  without  limit. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  the  reduction  on  cameras  allowed? 

Mr.  GENXERT.  I  can  only  take  up  the  question  of  cameras  alone, 
because  the  cameras  are  the  sole  photographic  article  that  come  under 
the  paragraph  that  the  committee  is  considering  to-day. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  What  is  the  number  of  that  paragraph? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  One  hundred  and  eight. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Your  business  is  the  business  of  selling  photographic 
supplies  ? 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  Yes,  sir;  and  to  a  certain  extent  manufacturing. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  line  do  you  manufacture? 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  We  have  formerly  to  a  considerable  extent  manu- 
factured cameras,  but  we  were  unable  to  sell  them  owing  to  the 
restrictive  policy  pursued  in  the  main  by  the  predecessor  of  the 
present  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  the  Rochester  Optical  Co.,  which  in 
turn  has  been  absorbed  by  one  of  the  companies,  which  in  turn  has 
been  absorbed  by  the  present  corporation,  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co., 
which  is  a  corporation  of  New  Jersey. 


SCHEDULE  B.  885 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  the  Eastman  people 
have  seven-eighths  of  the  business  now  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  I  think  it  is  a  conservative  estimate  to  say  they 
have  seven-eighths  of  practically  every  branch. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  that  a  patent  monopoly  or  a  monopoly  obtained 
by  combination  of  various  companies  which  own  patented  articles  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  That  opens  a  question  that  I  can  only  give  you  my 
side  of. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  would  not  expect  you,  after  what  I  have  heard  thus 
far,  to  give  the  Eastman  side  of  it. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  The  main  patents  on  the  films  have  expired,  and  the 
main  patents  on  the  cameras  have  expired.  But  for  films  and  plates 
they  relied  largely  on  the  secret-process  idea,  which  has,  by  a  recent 
decision,  been  exploded. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  the  Eastman  Co.  also  a  company  of  a  number  of 
other  concerns  which  were  engaged  independently  in  the  business  of 
making  cameras  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  A  good  many  years  ago,  yes.  It  has  absorbed  three 
or  four  of  the  largest  camera-manufacturing  companies. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  say  that  the  American  manufacturers  of  cameras 
to-day  can  not  compete  successfully  in  this  market  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  can  not. 

Mr.  PALMER.  With  the  Eastman  people  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  can  not. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Is  that  the  reason  you  went  out  of  business  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  We  were  forced  out  of  business  because  we  could 
not  seh1  our  goods,  owing  to  the  restrictive  policy  of  the  forerunner  of 
the  Eastman  Kodak  Co. 

Mr.  PALMER.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  restrictive  policy?  Do 
they  fix  a  price  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  had  films,  but  we  had  no  films.  We  had 
cameras.  But  each  retail  dealer  had  to  have  a  film,  which  we  did  not 
have.  And  as  a  result  they  cut  our  cameras  out  because  we  did  not 
have  the  films  to  sell  them.  We  are  left  high  and  dry,  and  one  by  one 
our  customers  are  throwing  us  overboard. 

I  intend  to  make  a  similar  argument  when  this  committee  reaches 
the  film  schedule,  which  I  believe  is  among  the  sundries. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Have  the  prices  on  photographic  products  gone  up 
or  down,  in  view  of  the  controlling  operations  of  the  Eastman  Co.  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  a  great  change  either 
way. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  what  length  of  time,  say  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  About  10  years. 

Mr.  PALMER.  There  have  been  great  advances  made  in  the  camera 
manufacturing  business  in  10  years  in  the  way  of  improved  cameras, 
have  there  not  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  There  have. 

Mr.  PALMER.  But  the  prices  you  think  have  remained  about  the 
same? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  The  prices  have  remained  about  the  same. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Are  there  foreign  cameras  which  are  equal  in  quality 
to  the  Eastman  camera  ? 


886  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  There  are,  but  we  can  not  bring  them  in  at  the 
price  the  Eastman  camera  is  selling  for  here.  We  are  selling  some, 
out  at  a  higher  price  than  the  Eastman.  We  sell,  for  instance,  a 
small  cheap  camera  for  $2.50  which  we  import.  That  is,  we  sell  it  if 
we  can.  The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  selling  the  same  camera  for  $2. 
Competition  under  those  circumstances  is  very  difficult. 

Mr.  PALMER.  You  mean  the  same  kind  of  camera,  about  the  same 
quality  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  Yes,  cameras  similar  to  each  other,  which  will  do 
the  same  work  ours  will  do. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Would  the  removal  of  this  45  per  cent  duty  open  up 
this  entire  American  market  to  the  foreign  article  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  It  would  give  us  an  opportunity  to  compete.  At 
the  present  moment  we  not  alone  have  difference  in  prices  against 
us,  but  we  have  the  restrictive  policy  which  scares  off  the  customer. 
If  we  could  get  a  much  lower  duty  we  could  at  least  meet  the  East- 
man Kodak  Co.  in  price,  and  we  might  even  afford  to  spend  more 
money  for  advertising,  and  thus  create  a  market. 

Mr.  PALMER.  I  should  think  that  the  Eastman  Co.  would  be  satis- 
fied with  a  reasonable  profit  on  its  capital  of,  say,  10  per  cent,  or 
even  15  per  cent,  which  is  a  fab-  manufacturers'  profit,  and  it  could 
reduce  the  price  of  cameras  so  as  to  still  keep  out  the  foreign  camera. 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  The  profit  is  so  enormous  it  is  hard  to  tell  where 
the  point  would  be  reached  by  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  They  could 
afford  to  keep  dropping  and  dropping.  It  is  unique.  I  do  not 
remember  just  what  the  profit  of  the  Standard  Oil  Co.  is,  but  even 
with  its  tremendous  dividends  there  is  a  surplus  that  in  a  very  few 
years  will  exceed  the  capital  stock,  mounting  and  mounting  by  leaps 
and  bounds. 

Mr.  LONGWORTH.  But  the  tariff  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Stand- 
ard Oil  Co.;  that  is  not  protected. 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  I  merely  used  the  instance  of  the  Standard  Oil  Co. 
as  an  instance  of  prosperity. 

Mr.  LOXGWORTH.  But  you  fire  speaking  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  My  example  was  probably  badly  chosen.  I  did 
not  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  producing  a  tariff  argument.  If  I 
created  that  impression,  I  want  to  correct  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  paragraph  reads,  "Opera  and  field  glasses, 
telescopes,  microscopes,  photographic  and  projection  lenses,  and 
optical  instruments. 

It  seems  the  Government  gets  about  $240,000  or  $250,000  out  of 
this  item.  There  must  be  competition  in  some  of  these  articles  that 
are  in  this  paragraph  to  produce  that  amount  of  revenue. 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  There  undoubtedly  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  we  make 
the  point  that  photographic  lenses  do  not  belong  in  that  schedule. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  wanted  to  ask  you  was  that  very  question. 
Does  the  term  "photographic  lenses''  cover  cameras? 

Mr.  GEXXERT.  It  does  not.  A  photographic  lens  is  on  a  sepa- 
rate piece  of  wood  and  easily  detachable  from  the  body  of  the  camera. 
In  other  words,  the  only  optical  part  of  the  camera,  is  the  lens. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Cameras  come  under  this  section  as  photographic 
lenses  ? 


SCHEDULE  B.  887 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  come  in  under  optical  instruments.  The 
board  of  appraisers  has  classed  them  as  optical  instruments. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  It  says,  "Photographic  and  projection  lenses  and 
optical  instruments,  and  frames  for  mountings  for  the  same." 

Mr.  GENNERT.  Yes,  but  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers  has  said 
that  cameras  are  optical  instruments. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  You  probably  know  that  the  Democratic  plat- 
form calls  for  the  placing  of  trust-controlled  products  on  the  free  list. 
Suppose  we  attempted  to  put  the  products  of  the  Eastman  Co.  upon 
the  free  list;  what  effect,  if  any,  would  that  have  upon  any  of  the 
manufacturers  of  cameras  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  It  would  be  a  benefit  to  everybody,  and  it  would 
permit  a  competition  between  outsiders  and  the  Eastman  Kodak 
Co.  There  would  be  only  one  class  of  manufacturers  who  might  be 
harmed.  The  manufacture  of  lenses  and  shutters,  while  it  is  not  a 
large  part  of  the  industry,  is  still  carried  on  on  a  fairly  competitive 
basis. 

The  suggestion  I  was  going  to  take  the  liberty  of  making  to  this 
body  was  that  a  separate  duty  be  levied  on  cameras.  We  desire  to 
import  from  Europe  camera  bodies,  namely,  a  box,  which  is  not 
optically  equipped  with  a  lens  and  a  shutter.  When  this  box  has 
been  imported  from  Europe  we  intend  to  go  to  the  American  manu- 
facturers of  lenses  and  shutters,  an  industry  which  is  still  independent, 
and  equip  our  European-bought  bodies  with  American  optical  por- 
tions. And  I  might  add  that  we  do  not  manufacture  these  Ameri- 
can optical  portions. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  How  large  a  proportion  of  the  camera  production 
in  the  United  States  is  controlled  by  the  Eastman  people  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  At  least  seven-eighths,  if  not  more. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Are  they  selling  their  products  cheaper  abroad 
than  they  are  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  As  to  answering  yes  or  no,  I  do  not  think  I  can 
answer.  Their  sale  in  foreign  countries  depends  upon  the  condition 
of  those  countries.  If,  for  instance,  there  is  a  duty  into  the  country, 
persons  buying  are  given  a  large  discount  for  customs,  so  that  they 
can  meet  competition.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  the  prices  they  get  abroad  and  the  prices  the  others  get. 
They  are  always  there  and  sell  cheap  enough  to  be  able  to  compete 
abroad;  and,  while  they  have  not  the  control  abroad  they  have  in 
America,  they  still  do  a  large  business  in  practically  every  civilized 
Eur6pean  country. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  know  if  they  have  factories  abroad  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  have  factories  for  certain  articles,  but  which 
ones  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  any  financial  connection 
between  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  and  the  foreign  Kodak  Trust  in 
England  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  There  is  undoubtedly  some  connection. 

Mr.  HILL.  There  is  undoubtedly?  Then  putting  the  article  on 
the  free  list,  even  though  the  Democratic  platform  called  for  it,  does 
not  necessarily  call  for  putting  the  foreign  trust  on  the  free  list,  but 
only  domestic  articles  on  the  free  list  ? 


888  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  I  might  say — 

Mr.  HILL  (interposing) .  Can  you  reach  these  people  by  the  tariff  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.   Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  I  would  like  to  know  why  could  not  the  Eastman 
Co.  manufacture  abroad  any  article  made  free,  manufacture  it  in 
their  factories  abroad,  and  ship  the  finished  product  here  and  sell 
it  here  under  the  free  schedule  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  make  everything  here  that  thev  can  make 
cheaper;  they  do  not  manufacture  abroad  for  the  American  market 
at  all. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  would  not  they  do  it  if  it  was  free  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  is  what  I  say.  Can  you  reach  this  problem  by 
tariff  regulation  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  If  the  tariff  is  reduced  we  can.  Even  if  we  do  not 
buy  the  goods  from  Eastman,  if  the  tariff  is  reduced,  we  can  get  the 
goods  from  others  at  such  a  price  that  we  can  compete  here. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  am  just  as  much  opposed  to  the  trust  proposition  as 
you  are.  But  the  question  I  wrant  to  know  about  is  what  is  the  best 
way  of  reaching  it.  If  the  Eastman  Co.  has  a  factory  in  England, 
and  another  in  Germany,  and  the  articles  they  make  are  put  on  the 
free  list,  how  have  you  helped  the  situation  any? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  To  answer  your  question  properly,  I  would  have 
to  know  more  than  I  do  about  the  extent  to  which  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co.  manufactures  abroad. 

Mr.  G.  C.  GENXERT.  I  think  I  can  answer  your  question.  The 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.  does  not  manufacture  in  Germany. 

Mr.  HILL.  Do  they  in  England  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  have  a  factory  in  England.  I  do  not  think 
they  make  any  cameras  in  England. 

Mr.  HILL.  Have  the}-  any  business  connection  with  anybody  else 
in  other  countries,  or  is  it  the  same  company  there  as  here? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  have  none  that  I  know  of.  They  have  offices 
for  the  sale  of  their  goods.  There  was  a  report  some  time  ago  they 
had  joined  with  a  company  in  Dresden.  I  tried  to  verify  that  report 
when  I  was  in  Germany  this  summer,  but  I  was  assured  there  was  no 
truth  in  it  by  the  officers  of  the  company. 

Mr.  HILL.  Are  you  manufacturing  here  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  I  manufacture  on  a  small  scale  here. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  would  be  your  judgment  if  they  did  have  a  factory 
abroad  whether  putting  the  product  on  the  free  list  would  in  any  way 
relievo  the  situation? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  The  putting  of  cameras  on  the  free  list  will  relieve 
the  situation  in  this  way:  There  are  factories  abroad  at  the  present 
moment  prepared  to  supply  us  with  goods  appropriate  for  our  use. 
There  are  none  in  the  United  States.  We  are  making  plans  now  to 
go  into  the  manufacture  ourselves.  We  arc  not  afraid  of  the  free 
list.  There  will  always  be  a  certain  trade  in  this  country  in  cam- 
eras of  foreign  manufacture. 

Mr.  HILL.   You  are  not  manufacturing  now? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  We  are  on  a  small  scale.  We  are  preparing  to 
embark  on  a  larger  scale.  It  is  only  a  year  since  the  Houston  patent, 


SCHEDULE   B.  889 

PARAGRAPH  108— CAMERAS,  LENSES,  ETC. 

which  controlled  the  camera,  expired.  Before  that  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co.  had  absolute  control,  except  of  a  license  owned  by  the 
Ansco  Co. 

Mr.  HILL.  While  I  am  opposed  to  the  trust  proposition,  I  can  not 
quite  see  how,  for  instance,  taking  sewing  machines  that  are  made 
here,  and  then  having  the  same  machines  made  as  extensively  abroad 
as  here — how  it  is  going  to  relieve  the  situation  by  putting  such  an 
article  on  the  free  list,  when  it  can  be  made  abroad  cheaper  than  it 
can  be  made  here. 

Mr.  GENNEET.  I  have  not  said  it  could  be  made  abroad  cheaper. 
I  do  not  believe  the  kodak  company  would  save  any  money  by  manu- 
facturing in  Europe. 

Mr.  HILL.  They  certainly  are  not  barred  out  of  England  by  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  and  if  they  have  a  factory  in  England  there  would  be 
nothing  to  prevent  them  making  them  there,  and  if  they  could  make 
them  cheaper,  selling  them  over  here  in  competition. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  do  not  make  them  hi  England.  They  export 
to  England,  Germany,  and  France,  as  far  as  I  know.  The  exports 
amount  to  more  than  half  a  million  dollars,  photographic  cameras 
alone. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  What  do  the  imports  amount  to  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  are  very  small. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  About  one-half  million  came  in  under  paragraph 
108,  but  they  are  classed  by  the  Treasury  Department  with  these 
other  goods,  under  the  same  paragraph,  and  we  do  not  know  what 
proportion  was  photographic  material. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  It  is  so  infinites  imally  small  they  could  not  be  con- 
sidered separately. 

Mr.  HARRISON.  Putting  cameras  on  the  free  list,  then,  would  have 
no  effect  upon  the  revenue? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  None  whatever.  It  would,  in  so  far  as  the  imports 
would  increase,  and  if  there  was  a  light  duty  the  Government  would 
have  that  advantage.  Of  course,  if  they  are  put  on  the  free  list  that 
would  not  be  the  case. 

Mr.  DIXON.  Do  the  Eastman  people  manufacture  everything  that 
goes  to  make  up  a  camera  ? 

Mr.  GENNERT.  They  manufacture  everything  that  is  used  in 
photography. 

Mr.  GENNERT.  In  conclusion  I  would  like  to  read  the  suggestion  I 
have  taken  the  liberty  to  put  into  my  short  brief.  We  request  the 
following  new  paragraphs  in  the  law  that  is  being  prepared,  in  place 
of  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  on  cameras-  levied  as  optical  instru- 
ments under  paragraph  108  of  the  present  tariff  law: 

1.  Camera  bodies  not  optically  equipped  and  parts  thereof  to  be  free. 

2.  Cameras  optically  equipped,  15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee: 

I  am  here  before  your  committee  for  the  purpose  of  requesting  changes  in  the  tariff 
on  photographic  cameras.  These  changes,  if  made,  will  tend  to  free  the  trade  in  these 
instruments  from  the  unfair  selling  restrictions  under  which  it  is  now  laboring,  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  entire  photographic  supply  business  in  this  country  is  con- 
trolled by  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  These  changes  would  increase  the  revenue  to 
•  the  Government  by  changing  the  present  conditien  of  merely  nominal  imports  to  one 
of  considerable  importation,  and  would  benefit  the  public  by  making  possible  a  reduc- 
tion in  prices. 


890  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

Some  years  ago  there  were  a  number  of  factories  engaged  in  manufacturing  cameras 
in  America.  At  the  present  time  one  single  company,  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  which 
has  absorbed  the  most  importantcamera  factories  of  this  country,  is  producing  at  least 
seven-eighths  of  all  the  cameras  made  in  America;  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  selling 
cameras  to  retailers  under  a  restriction  policy  and  refuses  to  allow  anybody  to  sell  its 
cameras  who  either  sells  cameras  made  by  any  other  manufacturers  or  who  sells  films 
used  in  the  cameras  which  are  not  the  product  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.;  this  same 
principle  they  apply  at  will  to  their  other  products. 

That  the  charge  that  this  company  is  a  trust  in  violation  of  the  Sherman  law  is  not 
an  empty  statement,  is  best  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  this  company's  methods  are 
now  under  investigation  by  the  Department  of  Justice,  where  detailed  information 
can  most  easily  be  obtained  by  this  body. 

I  append  a  copy  of  a  letter  received  by  my  firm  from  a  dealer  in  photographic 
materials  in  New  York  City,  whose  name  I  will  not  give,  unless  this  committee  re- 
quests the  same,  in  order  that  this  dealer  may  not  be  cut  off  from  further  supplies  of 
goods  by  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  The  letter  is  as  follows: 

"We  are  returning  herewith  1  Ensignette  camera,  list,  $10;  1  Ensignette,  list,  $15. 
Please  credit  these  to  our  account.  We  could,  no  doubt,  have  sold  a  large  number  of 
these  cameras,  but,  as  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  refuses  to  sell  us  their  product  if  we 
sold  Ensignettes,  we  are  obliged  to  discontinue  the  sale  of  them." 

This  letter  is  dated  March  27,  1912,  and  is  one  of  a  large  number  of  similar  import, 
which  we  are  prepared  to  submit  to  this  body. 

That  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  which  not  "alone  dominates  but  controls  the  entire 
photographic  business  of  this  country  in  cameras,  plates,  and  films,  is  in  no  need  of  a 
protective  tariff  is  best  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  it  has  paid  in  1911  and  1912  a  divi- 
dend on  its  common  stock  of  40  per  cent  per  annum,  and  that  its  earnings  on  the  com- 
mon stock  for  1911  were  57  per  cent,  the  common  stock  amounting  to  about  $20,000.000. 

My  firm,  for  instance,  is  unable  to  buy  any  goods  or  to  buy  any  cameras  or  films 
from  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  simply  because  we  have  the  temerity  to  wish  to  sell 
also  films  and  cameras  not  manufactured  by  the  trust.  Under  these  trade  conditions 
and  particularly  in  view  of  the  high  duty  of  45  per  cent  levied  on  cameras,  competi- 
tion has  been  impossible,  and  we  have  been  forced  to  go  to  Europe  to  get  our  cameras, 
which  we  must  import  and  sell  with  very  little  profit.  This  is  a  situation  from  which 
we  now  desire  relief. 

Cameras  have  never  been  specifically  provided  for  in  any  of  our  tariffs;  they  have 
been  classified  by  the  board  of  appraisers  as  optical  instruments,  which  we  contend 
they  are  not.  Cameras  are  made  up  of  a  camera  body  and  a  lens,  which  latter  is  an 
optical  instrument.  Th^  camera  body  is  certainly  not  an  optical  instrument. 

The  lenses,  and  the  shutters  used  to  govern  the  quantity  of  light  admitted  through 
the  lens,  both  of  which  are  properly  optical  instruments,  are  not  under  the  domina- 
tion of  any  trust  in  this  country,  and  their  manufacture  is  independently  and  suc- 
cessfully carried  on  in  the  United  States  at  present  under  proper  and  fair  conditions, 
quite  different  from  the  completely  equipped  cameras. 

We  desire  to  import  camera  bodies  as  we  have  been  doing  in  the  past — that  is  to 
say,  cameras  not  equipped  with  a  lens  and  shutter — for  the  reason  that  we  can  not  buy 
these  bodies  in  America.  After  their  importation  we  will  equip  these  bodies  imported 
from  abroad  with  lenses  and  shutters  of  American  manufacture,  thus  giving  employ- 
ment to  American  labor.  The  optical  portion  of  the  camera — that  is  to  say,  the  lens 
and  shutter-^originally  constitutes  about  one-third  of  the  value  of  the  completely 
equipped  camera.  We  request,  therefore,  the  following  new  paragraphs  in  the  law 
that  is  being  prepared  in  place  of  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  on  cameras  levied 
as  optical  instruments  under  paragraph  108  of  the  present  tariff  law: 

1.  Camera  bodies  not  optically  equipped,  and  parts  thereof,  to  be  free. 

2.  Cameras  optically  equipped,  15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  feel  sure  that  if  these  changes  in  the  tariff  law  are  made,  the  present  importa- 
tion of  cameras,  which  is  so  small  that  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  fur- 
nishes no  statistics  in  regard  thereto,  will  be  increased  at  least  fourfold  over  the 
present  figure,  of  less  than  $50,000  per  annum,  an  amount  to  which  the  undersigned  is 
no  doubt  the  largest  contributor.  Opposed  to  this  small  amount  are  exports  of  cameras 
and  other  photographic  apparatus  which  amounted  for  the  nine  months  ended  March, 
1912,  to  §535,158,  an  amount  shown  by  the  last  statistics  of  the  Bureau  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  to  be  on  a  constant  increase. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

G.  GENNERT, 
24  and  26  East  Thirteenth  Street,  New  York,  N.  T. 

NEW  YORK,  January  9,  1913. 


SCHEDULE  B.  891 

PABAGBAPH  108— LENSES    CAMEBAS,  ETC. 

LETTER    OF    WILLIAMS,  BROWN  &   EARLE    (INC.),  REGARDING 

LENSES,   ETC. 

PHILADELPHIA,  January  10,  1913. 
CHAIRMAN  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  unnecessary  duty  on  microscopes, 
photographic  and  projecting  lenses. 

Microscopes  are  manufactured  in  the  United  States  to-day  and  sold  at  prices  which 
are  as  low  as  goods  of  similar  quality  can  be  imported  into  the  United  States.  It, 
therefore,  is  not  necessary  for  any  duty  to  be  levied  on  microscopes,  so  far  as  a  protec- 
tion to  the  industry  is  concerned. 

The  American  manufacturers  of  photographic  and  projecting  lenses  are  amply  able 
to  compete  with  their  product  without  any  duty  being  levied  upon  such  lenses.  Micro- 
scopes, photographic  and  projecting  lenses  are  scientific  instruments  used  in  the  arts 
and  therefore  should  be  free  of  duty  so  as  to  enable  institutions  and  individuals  engaged 
in  research  work  and  investigation  to  get  their  goods  at  a  lower  price. 

Many  physicians  of  limited  incomes  are  deprived  of  the  use  of  a  microscope  owing 
to  the  high  prices  that  are  charged  on  account  of  the  duty  which  is  levied  on  the 
foreign  product  and  on  account  of  the  large  profits  made  by  the  American  manufac- 
turers on  microscopes. 

We  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  remove  the  duty  on  microscopes  as  well  as  on 
photographic  and  projecting  lenses,  neither  of  which  are  luxuries,  but  are  intended 
for  scientific  research  and  purchased  by  those  who  are  not  able  to  expend  large 
amounts  of  money  and  are  used  by  them  in  many  cases  for  a  lifetime  in  their  profes- 
sion 01  occupation. 

Yours,  very  truly,  WILLIAMS,  BROWN  &  EARLE  (!NC.), 

HENRY  S.  WILLIAMS,  President. 

REQUEST    OF   CALIFORNIA   CAMERA  CLUB,  REQUESTING  THAT 
PHOTOGRAPHIC  APPARATUS  BE  PLACED  ON  FREE  LIST. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.,  January  16,  1913. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UXDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  California  Camera  Club,  an  organization  in  this  city  of  about  400 
users  of  photographic  apparatus,  and  no  doubt  representative  of  the  attitude  of  thou- 
sands of  other  photographers,  at  a  recent  meeting  passed  a  resolution  to  be  presented 
to  your  honorable  committee,  asking  that  in  the  proposed  revision  of  the  tariff  down- 
ward, the  excessive  duties  of  45  per  cent  prevailing  on  photographic  apparatus  be 
removed  altogether  and  they  be  placed  on  the  free  list  or  the  duty  reduced  to  some 
figure  that  is  equitable  to  thousands  of  consumers. 

It  is  alleged  as  a  special  and  good  reason  for  drastic  action  on  the  part  of  your  commit- 
tee on  this  schedule,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  business  of  the 
United  States  in  photographic  apparatus  and  supplies,  with  the  exception  of  a  com- 
paratively negligible  amount,  is  done  and  controlled  by  one  concern  and  its  several 
subdivisions,  and  that  this  concern  by  a  trade  agreement  rigidly  enforced  for  the 
past  12  years  upon  dealers  in  photographic  supplies,  has  prevented  the  development 
and  marketing  of  competitive  photographic  products. 

As  an  example  of  the  working  of  this  restrictive  system,  it  is  cited  that  the  San 
Francisco  City  directory  of  1912  list  26  exclusive  dealers  in  photographic  products, 
of  whom  there  is  only  one  known  to  be  not  doing  business  under  this  trade  agreement. 
This  condition  is  universal  throughout  the  country.  The  only  relief  for  the  consumer 
from  this  noncompetitive  condition  is  by  purchasing  abroad  where  supplies  and 
apparatus  of  the  highest  character  can  be  had  at  reasonable  prices,  but  this  relief  is 
denied  him  because  of  the  prohibitive  protective  tariff  duty. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  concern  referred  to  above  does  an  enormous  foreign 
business  in  its  products  in  Europe  and  England  as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  world, 
under  keenest  competitive  conditions  prevailing  there,  and  it  is  self-evident  that  a 
protective  tariff  duty  is  not  needed  in  this  country  excepting  as  it  has  served  during 
the  past  12  years  as  a  bulwark  to  the  non-competitive  business  policy  of  this  concern 


892  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

enforced  through  its  trade  agreements.     During  the  period  referred  to,  it  is  not  known 
to  have  given  the  consumer  the  benefit  of  any  reduction  in  price  originally  established. 

It  is  also  asked  that  relief  be  afforded  from  the  prohibitive  duty  of  45  per  cent  on 
photographic  lenses,  particularly  in  relation  to  scientifically  corrected  lenses  known 
at.  anastigmats,  which  are  universally  used  in  the  arts  and  sciences  in  the  production 
of  accurate  photographic  work. 

As  an  incident  of  the  controlled  development  of  the  photographic  business  of  the 
United  States  as  referred  to  above  in  this  communication,  there  has  in  consequence 
developed  in  this  country  only  one  large  and  prominent  manufacturer  of  photo- 
graphic lenses.  We  believe  investigation  will  show  that  bis  concern,  which  manu- 
factures the  bulk  of  corrected  American-made  lenses  (under  German  patents  and 
royalty)  is  publicly  advertising  and  selling  its  lenses  abroad  at  figures  corresponding 
to  prices  charged  consumers  in  this  country  less  the  45  per  cent  duty. 

It  is  necessary  in  this  communication  to  cover  the  contingency  that  in  your  hearing 
there  may  be  representation  by  other  so-called  American  manufacturers  of  foreign 
lenses  against  a  reduction  of  duty.  It  is  therefore  desired  to  call  to  your  attention  that 
there  are  several  concerns  of  this  kind  who  import  the  glass  elements  of  expensive 
anastigmat  lenses  unmounted  ready  for  assembling  and  bringing  them  in  under  the 
low  duty  charged  against  unmounted  lenses.  These  finished  lenses  ready  for  assem- 
bling are  mounted  at  small  cost  compared  to  the  cost  of  production  of  the  glass  elements 
in  metal  cells  and  sold  to  the  American  purchaser  at  a  price  that  includes  the  full 
45  per  cent  duty,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  no  such  duty  has  been  paid.  Basing 
our  information  as  to  the  high  cost  of  anastigmat  lens  on  the  information  thereon 
given  by  manufacturers  in  various  lens  catalogues  the  bulk  of  the  cost  of  such  len 
undoubtedly  lies  in  the  grinding  and  finished  polishing  of  the  lens  elements  and  the 
culling  out  of  faulty  lenses  after  all  the  work  on  them  has  been  done. 

The  various  allegations  made  above  concerning  these  various  concerns  are  not 
made  for  the  purpose  of  criticising  them,  but  for  the  sole  purpose  of  showing  that  an 
intolerable  and  unjust  condition  has  existed  for  years,  which  was  in  part  made  possible 
by  high  protective  tariff  duties,  which  without  the  tariff  would  quickly  and  equi- 
tably regulate  itself. 

Abroad,  where  free  trade  or  reasonable  duties  prevail,  no  such  condition  exists, 
and  there  is  the  keenest  competition  and  wide  varieties  of  photographic  manufac- 
turers for  purchasers  to  select  from.  The  condition  in  this  country,  it  is  contended, 
has  stifled  individual  enterprise  and  native  ability,  and  where  in  other  lines  we  are 
pieemme:it  such  is  not  the  case  in  photography. 

It  may  seem  irrelevant  in  a  communication  of  this  character  to  make  such  asser- 
tions, but  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  epoch-making  discoveries  and  inventions 
in  the  art  and  science  of  photography  in  the  last  10  years,  as  instanced  by  the  dis- 
covery of  color  photography  by  Lumere  and  the  invention  of  new  anastigmat  lenses 
and  developments  of  the  chemistry  of  photography,  have  been  made  abroad  and  not 
in  the  United  States. 

The  California  Camera  Club  four  years  ago,  at  the  time  when  this  schedule  of  the 
Payne-Aldrich  bill  was  up  for  revision,  took  up  the  matter  of  the  reduction  of  these 
duties  in  a  personal  communication  to  the  chairman  of  that  committee,  and  the  only 
acknowledgement  of  it  was  that  it  had  been  received  and  filed. 

We  trust  that  our  interests  and  the  interests  of  thousands  of  others  who  are  not  able 
in  any  other  way  to  present  their  case  to  your  committee  will  fare  better  at  your  hands. 

Begging  leave  to  remain,  we  are. 
Respectfully,  yours. 

RESOLUTION  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  CALIFORNIA  CAMERA  CLUB, 
C.  P>.  AUKKBACH.  Chairman. 

BRIEF  OF  SENECA  CAMERA  MANUFACTURING  CO.,  OF  ROCHES- 
TER, N.  Y.,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  DUTY  ON  PHOTOGRAPHIC 
CAMERAS. 

ROCHESTER,  N.  Y.,  January  15,  1913. 

To  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  tJte  House  of  Representatives: 
The  Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.,  of  Rochester,  X.  Y.,  files  this  statement 

relative  to  the  tariff  upon  photographic  cameras  in  answer  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  G.  C. 

( iennert.  an  importer  and  dealer  of  New  York  City,  made  to  the  committee  on  January 

!).  1!M3. 

The  present  duty  is  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph  108. 


SCHEDULE  B.  893 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS,  ETC. 

The  Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.  is  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  photographic 
cameras  at  Rochester,  X .  Y.  It  manufactures  no  other  line  of  goods.  It  has  an  invest- 
ment of  at  least  $125,000  in  that  business  and  employs  at  least  175  hands  upon  the  aver- 
age throughout  the  year  in  the  manufacture  of  cameras.  Mr.  Gennert  advocates  such 
change  in  the  law  as  shall  put  camera  bodies  not  optically  equipped  and  parts  thereof 
on  the  free  list  and  a  duty  of  15  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  cameras  optically  equipped. 
In  support  of  this  he  states: 

First.  "That  domestic  dealers  like  himself  in  photographic  cameras  can  not  buy 
and  sell  cameras  of  domestic  manufacture,  because  the  entire  supply  thereof  is  con- 
trolled by  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  That  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co  manufactures  seven- 
eighths  or  more  of  the  domestic  product.  That  no  domestic  manufacturer  of  photo- 
graphic cameras  can  compete  with  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co." 

The  fact  is  that  there  are  five  substantial  business  concerns  manufacturing  photo- 
graphic cameras  in  the  United  States,  all  of  which  are  wholly  independent  of  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.  and  are  successfully  competing  with  it.  These  are:  The  Ansco 
Co.,  Binghamton,  N.  Y.;  Burke  &  James,  Chicago,  111.;  Connolly  Camera  Co.,  Roches- 
ter, Minn.;  Gundlach-Manhattan  Optical  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y.;  Seneca  Camera 
Manufacturing  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y.  In  addition  there  are  some  smaller  companies 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention. 

The  foregoing  five  establishments  have  an  aggregate  investment  in  the  manufacture 
of  photographic  cameras  of  at  least  $750,000.  They  have  upward  of  850  employees 
in  that  line  of  manufacture  alone  and  they  produce  at  least  one-fourth  and  probably 
one-third  of  all  the  photographic  cameras  sold  in  the  United  States.  Mr.  Gennert  can 
buy  domestic  made  photographic  cameras  from  any  one  of  the  above-named  five  con- 
cerns on  terms  which  will  enable  him  to  compete  successfully,  so  far  as  the  character 
c.i  the  product  or  the  price  is  concerned,  with  the  cameras  manufactured  by  the  East- 
man Kodak  Co.  For  several  years  he  has  purchased  cameras  of  the  Seneca  Camera 
Manufacturing  Co.  For  the  year  1910  his  purchases  from  that  company  amounted  to 
$6,855;  for  1911  to  $5,053;  for  1912  to  $4,258. 

Mr.  Gennert  states: 

Second.  "That  the  placing  of  photographic  cameras  upon  the  free  list  would  not 
affect  any  domestic  production  except  that  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  which  needs 
no  protection  because  its  profits  have  been  so  large  that  it  is  paying  annual  dividends 
of  6  per  cent  on  upward  of  $6,000,000  of  preferred  stock  and  40  per  cent  on  upward  of 
$19,000,000  of  common  stock,  the  common  shares  of  the  par  value  of  $100  having  now 
a  market  value  of  upward  of  $700  each." 

The  profits  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  as  shown  by  the  value  of  its  stock  and  by  the 
rate  of  dividends  which  it  is  now  paying  are  correctly  stated,  but  the  inference  that 
these  profits  are  made  from  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  photographic  cameras  is  wholly 
incorrect.  The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  has  never  made  any  unusual  profit  from  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  cameras,  which  is  but  a  very  small  part  of  its  business.  For 
many  years  that  company  has  manufactured  and  sold  a  complete  line  of  photographic 
goods,  including  besides  cameras,  photographic  papers,  plates,  and  films,  develop- 
ment apparatus  and  supplies,  moving-picture  films,  etc.  Until  the  year  1906  it  had 
never  paid  a  dividend  upon  its  common  shares  of  more  than  10  per  cent.  Up  to  10 
years  ago  its  preferred  and  common  stock  was  selling  at  par  or  slightly  above  par. 
Then  came  the  moving-picture  business,  for  which  it  mamifactures  the  films.  It  has 
now  a  complete  monopoly  of  the  manufacture  of  moving-picture  film  in  the  United 
States  and  a  complete  monopoly  of  supplying  moving-picture  film  to  the  moving-pic- 
ture establishments  in  the  United  States.  This  business  has  proved  enormously 
profitable  and  accounts  for  the  extraordinary  profits  of  the  company. 

Mr.  Gennert  also  states: 

Third:  "That  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  refuses  to  permit  dealers  in  photographic  sup- 
plies to  purchase  and  sell  its  goods  if  the  dealer  undertakes  to  sell  a  camera  of  any  other 
manufacturer.  Having  stated  that  there  was  no,  or  substantially  no,  domestic  pro- 
duction except  that  of  the  Eastman  Co.,  he  leaves  the  inference  to  be  drawn  that  the 
Eastman  Co.  would  be  properly  dealt  with  by  putting  its  product  on  the  free  list." 

It  is  true  that  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  by  methods  which  are  probably  within  the 
law,  restricts  its  retail  dealers  to  the  sale  of  its  products  exclusively.  The  independent 
manufacturers  of  photographic  apparatus  and  supplies  have  suffered  enormously 
from  this  practice  of  the  Eastman  Co.  They  have  maintained  their  position  hi  spite 
of  it.  They  would  welcome  the  abolition  of  this  practice  and  the  removal  of  this 
obstacle  to 'then-  growth  heartily,  as  heartily  as  Mr.  Gennert  would,  for  their  interest 
and  his  in  that  respect  are  identical.  They  fail,  however,  to  see  how  the  removal  or 
reduction  of  the  duty  upon  cameras  would  accomplish  that  even  to  the  slightest 


894  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  108— LENSES,  CAMERAS  ETC. 

degree.  The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  manufactures  a  complete  line  of  photographic  appa- 
ratus and  supplies.  It  advertises  its  goods  extensively  so  that  they  are  well  known. 
It  is,  therefore,  to  the  advantage  of  the  retail  dealer  to  handle  their  goods.  If  the 
Eastman  Co.  can  legally  require  the  retail  dealer  or  legally  make  it  an  object  to  the 
retail  dealer  to  handle  Eastman  goods  exclusively,  it  will,  of  course,  do  so. 

The  tariff,  however;  has  nothing  to  do  with  that.  Neither  the  rate  of  duty  nor  the 
absence  of  duty  upon  imports  will  affect  that  feature  of  the  business.  If,  however,  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.  was  the  only  domestic  concern  to  be  affected  it  might  very  well 
be  urged  that  it  deserves  no  protective  duty,  but  that  is  not  the  case  as  we  have  already 
shown.  The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  controls  the  Canadian  Kodak  Co.  (Ltd.),  of  Toronto, 
Canada;  the  Kodak  (Ltd.),  of  London,  England;  the  Eastman  Kodak  Socie'te'  Fran- 
caise  of  Paris,  France,  and  the  Kodak  Gesellschaft,  of  Berlin,  Germany.  It  is,  there- 
fore, in  a  position  to  take  advantage  of  any  reduction  in  the  duties  upon  imports 
imposed  by  the  United  States  and  to  manufacture  its  goods  abroad  and  supply  the 
domestic  market.  The  contrary  is  true  of  the  independent  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Gennert  further  states  in  effect: 

Fourth.  "That  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  prevents  the  importation  of  cameras 
at  a  price  which  will  compete  with  the  domestic  made  article." 

To  bear  out  this  statement  Mr.  Gennert  refers  to  a  small  camera  which  he  imports 
to  sell  at  $2.50.  He  states  that  the  same  camera  of  domestic  make  sells  for  $2.  The 
camera  which  he  refers  to  as  imported  by  him  is  the  "Ensign  "  2|  B  made  by  Hough- 
tons  (Ltd.),  of  London  and  Glasgow.  The  $2  domestic  camera  to  which  he  refers  is 
the  No.  2  "Brownie"  made  by  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  which  corresponds  to  the 
No.  2  "Scout "  made  by  us.  We  submit  with  this  statement  a  sample  of  each  of  these 
three  cameras  in  order  that  the  committee  may  see  that  the  $2.50  English  made 
camera  is  superior  in  every  way  to  either  of  the  $2"  American  cameras.  The  difference 
in  the  cameras  accounts  for  the  difference  in  the  retail  price,  and  when  the  difference 
in  the  cameras  is  taken  into  account  it  is  apparent  that  the  present  tariff  of  45  per 
cent  does  not  prevent  an  English  made  camera  from  competing  as  to  price  with  a 
similar  camera  of  domestic  manufacture. 

Furthermore,  the  letters  from  customers  produced  by  Mr.  Gennert  before  the 
committee  show  that  with  the  present  rate  of  import  duty  upon  cameras,  English 
made  cameras  can  be  imported  at  a  price  which  will  enable  them  to  compete  freely 
with  American  made  goods.  One  of  the  letters  produced  by  Mr.  Gennert  before  the 
committee  read  as  follows: 

"We  are  returning  herewith  one  Ensignette  camera,  list  $10,  and  one  Ensignette,  list 
$15.  Please  credit  theso  to  our  account.  We  could  no  doubt  have  sold  a  large  num- 
ber of  theso  cameras,  but  as  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  refused  to  sell  us  their  product 
if  we  sold  Ensignettes  we  are  obliged  to  discontimie  the  sale  of  them." 

Another  letter  produced  by  Mr.  Gennert  read  as  follows: 

"I  am  returning  via  United  States  Express  one  Ensignette  camera  which  I  wish 
you  would  give  me  credit  for  as  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  have  stopped  me  from  sell- 
ing it.'' 

Another  letter  road: 

"  I  must  return  the  camera  because  I  can  not  afford  to  incur  the  displeasure  of  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co." 

The  "  Ensign  pt  to  ' '  cameras  above  referred  to  are  manufactured  by  Houghtons  (Ltd.), 
of  London  and  Glasgow,  and  are  a  folding  vest-pocket  or  small  type,  as  the  name 
indicates,  of  thoii  "Ensign"  camera. 

It  is  therefore  apparent  that  the  duty  of  45  per  cent  under  existing  law  does  not 
prevent  Mr.  Gcnnort  from  dealing  in  foreign  made  cameras  through  retail  dealers  in 
the  United  States,  but  that  the  dealers  were  only  prevented  from  handling  the  foreign 
marie  goods  by  the  practice  of  the  Eastman  Company  in  restricting  such  dealers  to 
the  Eastman  Co.'s  goods  exclusively. 

It  is  true,  as  was  pointed  out  at  the  hearing  before  this  committee  on  the  9th  inst., 
I  hat  the  importation  of  foreign-made  cameras  under  existing  law  is  very  small.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  prohib- 
itive. On  the  contrary  it  appears  from  what  has  been  above  stated  that  American 
dealers  can  handle  and  would  be  very  u;lad  to  handle  foreign  cameras  under  the  present 
rate  of  duty  were  it  not  for  the  restrictions  put  upon  the  retail  dealers  by  the  East- 
man Kodak  Co.  The  Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.  has  a  modern  plant  of  the 
highest  efiiciency.  It  is  in  keen  competition  with  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  in  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  cameras  and  with  the  four  other  independent  manufacturers 
herein  named.  It  pays  out  to  its  employees  in  wages  an  amount  equaling  over  69 


SCHEDULE  B.  895 

PARAGRAPH   108— LENSES,   CAMERAS,   ETC. 

per  cent  of  its  output  of  manufactured  goods.  If  the  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem 
under  which  it  has  been  able  to  establish  its  business  as  a  competitor  of  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co.  is  removed  or  materially  reduced  its  business  can  not  continue.  The 
same  must  be  true  of  the  other  independent  camera  makers  above  named. 

It  is,  therefore,  respectfully  submitted  that  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad 
valorem  so  far  as  it  applies  to  photographic  cameras  is  reasonable  and  should  not  be 
changed. 

SENECA  CAMERA  MANUFACTURING  Co., 
By  F.  K.  TOWNSEND,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 

DISCUSSION  OF  THE  CAMERA  INDUSTRY. 

LETTER  OF  THE  ANSCO  Co.,  BINGHAMTON,  N.  Y. 

ANSCO  Co., 

Binghamton,  N.  Y.,  January  15,  19 IS. 
Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  9 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  read  a  few  days  ago  in  the  newspapers  an  account  of  the  hearing  on 
the  schedule  affecting  duties  on  photographic  cameras,  and  regret  that  through  lack 
of  notice  or  inadvertence  on  our  part  we  were  not  represented  at  the  hearing. 

According  to  the  press  reports  Mr.  G.  Gennert  has  made  the  statement  that  there  is 
a  large  profit  in  the  manufacture  of  cameras;  that  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  has  made 
enormous  profits  from  that  end  of  their  business,  because  of  the  high  import  duties, 
which  keep  foreign-made  cameras  out.  The  facts  warrant  me  in  stating  that  Gennert'a 
attention  is  absolutely  unwarranted. 

The  Ansco  Co.  makes  a  line  of  cameras  paralleling  that  of  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co. 
The  cost  of  production,  namely,  the  raw  materials  and  the  high  wages  which  prevail, 
makes  that  branch  of  the  Ansco  Co.'s  business  almost  unproductive. 

All  the  independent  dealers  in  photographic  supplies  in  this  country  know  that 
we  have  for  several  years  freely  admitted  that  we  only  manufacutre  cameras  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  the  independent  dealer  a  complete  assortment  of  photographic 
goods  to  parallel  that  of  ;  he  Eastman  controlled  dealer.  This  statement  has  been  made 
to  Gennert,  who,  as  a  dealer,  was  at  one  time  interested  in  the  sale  of  Ansco  cameras. 

In  other  words,  we  manufacture  cameras  practically  at  no  profit,  after  the  large 
investment  is  taken  in  consideration;  so  that  the  independent  dealer,  whom  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.  declines  to  do  business  with,  may  have  cameras  to  sell  as  a  vehicle 
to  dispose  of  other  goods  on  which  we  and  other  independent  manufacturers  make 
a  reasonable  profit. 

The  importation  of  cameras  from  Europe  has  not  in  any  way  been  impeded  by  the 
duty  as  it  now  stands.  The  duty  is  less  than  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  manu- 
facture in  Europe,  where  labor  is  cheaper,  and  the  cost  of  production  in  this  country. 

There  are  now  being  imported  into  this  country  all  the  different  models  of  cameras 
made  in  Europe  for  which  a  market  has  been  created  here.  If  more  are  not  imported 
and  sold .  it  is  because  the  European  manufacturer  does  not  create  or  produce  business, 
but  merely  waits  until  the  American  manufacturer  has  established  a  demand. 

There  are  many  types  of  cameras  now  made  in  Europe  in  imitation  of  the  American 
designs,  devices,  and  models,  which  have  been  widely  advertised  in  this  country,  and 
for  which  the  American  manufacturer,  at  an  enormous  expense  for  propaganda,  has 
created  a  large  demand. 

Those  cameras  may  not  be  imported  into  this  country  to  fill  this  demand  created  by 
tl.e  American  manufacturer — who  has  been  able  to  advertise  them  because  of  patent 
protections — simply  because  they  are  alleged  to  be  infringements  of  American  patents. 

The  hindrance  heretofore  to  the  importation  of  these  styles  of  cameras  has  been  the 
Houston  patent.  The  Houston  patent  has  recently  expired,  and  the  European  makers 
will  now  have  a  chance  to  see  what  they  can  do  on  an  even  basis  with  American  manu- 
facturers, whose  protection  is  simply  a  duty  equivalent  to  less  than  the  difference 
between  the  cost  of  production  in  Europe  and  the  United  States.  To  lower  the  duties 
will  be  throwing  away  revenue  and  will  only  result  in  injuring  American  industries. 

Photographic  cameras,  especially  the  amateur  variety  in  which  importers  are  inter- 
ested, may  only  be  classified  as  an  article  of  luxury  purchased  mainly  by  those  who 
can  afford  to  indulge  in  the  pastime.  In  accordance  with  what  we  understand  is  the 
policy  to  be  pursued,  the  Government  is  committed,  and  properly  so,  to  tax  such 


896  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH    108— LENSES,   CAMERAS,   ETC. 

articles  of  luxury  to  the  end  that  the  downward  revision  on  necessities  may  not  affect 
the  total  revenues. 

It  is  stated  by  Gennert  that  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  a  trust;  that  it  has  through 
many  reprehensible  practices  restrained  trade,  so  that  they  are  in  reality  a  monopoly. 
We  quite  agree  with  Mr.  Gennert  in  this  respect;  and  if  the  Government  is  in  a  position 
to  correct  these  abuses  in  restraint  of  trade  it  will  help  us  in  the  fight  we  have,  after  a 
long  struggle,  waged 'successfully  in  building  up  a  business  on  independent  lines,  which 
affords  some  relief  to  the  photographic  dealer  and  to  the  photographic  consumer  by 
means  of  open  competition. 

We  certainly,  however,  must  protest  against  any  attempt  to  punish  the  Eastman 
monopoly  by  reducing  duties  on  imported  cameras,  for  this,  instead  of  punishing  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  will  be  the  means  of  putting  out  of  business  those  independent 
concerns,  like  ourselves,  which  have  afforded  the  only  competition  in  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  photographic  goods  in  this  country. 

The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  an  international  concern.  It  has  factories  in  several 
countries  in  Europe  and  in  Canada.  If  the  duties  were  reduced  so  that  it  would  not  be 
profitable  for  them  to  manufacture  cameras  in  this  country  they  will  surely  manufac- 
ture the  cameras  in  England  or  elsewhere,  where  labor  and  raw  materials  are  lower, 
and  simply  export  them  to  this  country. 

If  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  forced  to  manufacture  in  Europe  for  the  purpose  of 
exporting  cheap-labor  cameras,  because  of  a  lower  scale  of  duties,  they  would  have 
no  difficulty  in  consolidating  and  acquiring  the  few  camera  factories  in  Germany  and 
England  through  their  European  company.  In  that  way  they  would  destroy  the 
American  independent  manufacturer  and  would  control  the  price  to  American  con- 
sumers without  the  Sherman  law  being  operative  against  them.  Indeed,  it  has  already 
been  reported  that  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  has  acquired  the  lea  Co.  and  other  leading 
factories  in  Europe. 

This  method  of  stifling  competition  in  this  country  is  nothing  new,  for  the  Eastman 
Kodak  Co.  a  few  years  ago  did  this  very  same  thing  with  manufacturers  of  raw  photo- 
graphic paper  in  Europe.  This  paper  deal  was  the  foundation  for  the  Eastman  Kodak 
Co.'s  strong  financial  and  commanding  position  and  for  the  use  they  now  make  of 
their  preponderating  capital  and  output. 

Mr.  Gennert,  who  himself  is  now  advocating  the  destruction  of  the  American 
camera  industry,  would  be  a  sufferer  from  his  own  cupidity,  for  if  the  Eastman  Kodak 
Co.  manufactured  cameras  in  Europe  for  importation  into  this  country,  as  before  out- 
lined, and  in  addition  controlled  the  European  manufacturers,  Mr.  Gennert's  con- 
tract with  his  camera  maker  in  Europe  would  not  in  that  event  be  worth  the  paper 
it  is  written  on. 

The  Government  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  from  a  revenue  standpoint  it 
would  not  be  any  better  off.  The  revenue  in  the  way  of  duties  on  imported  finished 
cameras  might  increase,  but  the  revenue  in  the  way  of  duties  on  raw  materials  will 
cease,  such  as,  for  instance,  the  duty  on  glass  for  the  manufacture  of  lenses. 

Revenues  in  the  way  of  duties,  in  the  last  analysis,  are  collected  from  the  consumer, 
and  since  revenues  are  derived  from  the  people  and  from  no  other  source  it  is  plain 
that  every  industry,  receiving  a  body  blow  through  the  tariff,  means  so  many  thou- 
sand operatives  who  find  their  purchasing  power  reduced,  and  the  more  the  purchas- 
ing power  of  the  people  is  reduced  the  fewer  goods  will  they  be  able  to  buy  on  which 
the  Government  can  collect  duties. 

Gennert  and  other  importers  who  have  not  the  ability  or  courage  to  manufacture 
cameras  in  this  country  and  who  are  simply  selfishly  interested  in  making  greater 
profit  as  parasitical  middlemen,  are  distorting  facts  for  personal  gain  at  the  expense 
of  ihe  Government  and  to  the  lasting  detriment  of  the  American  people. 

If  there  are  to  be  further  hearings  affecting  photographic  goods,  I  shall  be  greatly 
obliged  to  be  advised  of  same  by  wire  at  my  expense,  if  the  time  is  short,  in  order 
that  we  may  cooperate  with  the  Government  in  reaching  a  conclusion  fair  alike  to  the 
Government,  the  consumer,  and  the  manufacturer. 

Very  truly,  yours,  Axsco  Co., 

T.  W.  STEPHENS,  President, 


SCHEDULE  B.  897 

PABAGBAPH   108— LENSES,   CAMEBAS,   ETC. 

(LETTER  OF  G.  GENNERT,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.) 

FEBRUARY  19,  1913. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS  :  Referring  to  the  letters  sent  to  this  committee  by  the  Seneca  Camera  Manufac- 
turing Co.  and  the  Ansco  Co.  in  opposition  to  your  petitioners  request  for  a  revision 
downward  of  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  on  photographic  cameras  assessed  under 
Schedule  B,  paragraph  108,  as  optical  instruments,  we  beg  briefly  to  state  as  follows: 

Both  letters  consist  merely  oi  denials  of  petitioners  evidence  and  contain  no  facts 
that  will  or  can  enlighten  this  committee  on  the  real  condition  of  the  industry. 

The  objectant  letters  entirely  ignore  the  following  salient  points: 

(1)  There  are  now  practically  no  imports  of  camaras,  whereas  the  exports  for  the 
year  ending  December,  1912,  were  $672,108.    Lowering  the  duty  to  15  per  cent  will 
greatly  increase  the  revenue. 

(2)  The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  can  manufacture  more  cheaply  in  America  by  its  tre- 
mendous output  than  any  European  factory.     This  company  is  practically  the  only 
exporter  to  Europe,  where  it  competes  vigorously  but  where  it  does  not  manufacture 
cameras.    The  Eastmen  Co.  will  not  therefore  buy  up  the  European  factories  and 
export  cameras  to  the  United  States  if  the  duty  is  reduced. 

The  Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.  in  its  letter  to  this  committee  seems  to 
want  this  committee  to  believe  that  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.'s  methods  are  not  illegal. 
On  November  28,  1911,  the  Seneca  Co.  sent  out  to  the  trade  the  annexed  circular, 
which  throws  a  strange  light  on  the  sincerity  of  their  present  attitude  before  this 
committee. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

G.  GENNERT, 
24  East  Thirteenth  Street,  New  York. 


[Letter  annexed  to  statement  of  G.  Gennert.] 

SENECA  CAMERA  MANUFACTURING  Co., 

Rochester,  N.  Y.,  November  28,  1911. 
To  the  photographic  trade: 

The  pitiable,  humiliating  spectacle  of  a  great  man  brought  to  his  knees,  that's  the 
mental  picture  the  Camera  Trust's  recent  announcement  suggests. 

We  mean,  of  course,  the  letter  sent  you  under  date  of  November  15,  1911,  by  the 
Photographic  Trust. 

Have  you  digested  it? 

Was  there  ever  such  a  commingling  of  craven,  abject  fear,  with  fawning  hypocrisy? 
In  your  mind's  eye  cast  back  through  the  years  of  tyrannous  oppression,  when  Bill,  the 
chiD  swinger,  and  his  corps  d' espionage  ranged  the  land;  when  no  dealer  was  safe  for 
a  minute  from  the  paid  minions  of  their  corps  of  detectives;  look  along  the  pathway  of 
years,  strewn  with  wrecks  in  the  photographic  business,  and  place  the  responsibility; 
recall  the  restrictions,  the  rebates,  the  systems  of  petty  meddling.  Think  what  you 
have  had  to  put  up  with  in  your  struggle  to  eke  a  living  out  of  this  business.  Friend, 
ask  yourself  what  has  ever  been  the  attitude  of  the  trust.  Hasn't  it  used  the  photo- 
graphic dealer  as  one  would  a  common  conveyance?  Has  it  ever  given  to  him  as 
much  thought  as  you  would  bestow  on  an  office  boy? 

As  the  photographer  may  inadvertently  take  a  picture  on  a  plate  already  exposed, 
so  everything  has  appeared  to  the  trust  through  the  film  of  money.  This  film  has  grown 
to  be  a  cataract  and  an  operation  is  necessary,  in  fact,  overdue.  You  will  remember 
that  often,  like  Daniel  of  old,  we  called  the  attention  of  this  Belshazzar,  drunk_with 
sordid  gain,  to  the  handwriting  on  the  wall.  At  last,  outraged  freedom  shrieked 
aloud  and  the  Government  came  to  the  rescue.  Trusts  fell  on  all  sides;  from  the 
proud  position  of  mighty  arrogance  the  Photographic  Trust  fled  in  terror. 

Calmly  the  requirements  of  the  Department  of  Justice  regarding  corporations  were 
formulated  into  three  questions,  on  which  every  corporation  could  test  itself  as  to 
whether  it  was  complying  with  the  law  or  not.  Here  are  the  questions: 

Are  you  restricting  production? 

Are  you  using  duress  upon  your  competitors? 

78959°— VOL  1—13 57 


898  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   108— LENSES,   CAMERAS,   ETC. 

Are  you,  by  your  combination,  regulating  the  prices  at  which  your  goods  are  resold? 

Can  the  Camera  Trust  answer  any  of  these  questions  in  the  negative?  What  is 
that  we  hear  from  you,  friend?  Caught  with  the  goods? 

Now,  listen  to  tne  wail  of  the  octopus  in  its  official  letter:  "With  restrictions  re- 
moved, we  fear  there  will  be  a  tendency  to  reduce  the  dealers'  profit."  Noble  and 
trenchant  thought!  .The  trust  is  capitalized  at  $35,000,000;  you  know  how  much  of 
that  is  water.  It  is  paying  annually  40  per  cent  dividends.  Has  it  ever  given  thought 
before  to  what  you  were  making?  And  do  you  make  40  per  cent  on  the  real  capital 
invested  in  your  business?  With  a  fawning,  ingratiating,  solicitousness  that  is  en- 
tirely new  to  its  character,  the  trust  asks  you  in  its  letter  what  it  shall  do  in  the  future, 
what  shall  be  its  policy.  You  are  invitea  to  commend  the  system  that  has  enthralled 
you  in  bondage  for  years,  and  stood  with  its  foot  on  your  neck.  Why?  So  that  if 
the  Government  goes  further,  the  trust  can  rally  you  to  its  support.  Was  there  ever 
anything  so  impudent  as  this?  Were  you  ever  asked  to  help  the  strong  man  formu- 
late a  policy  for  running  his  business  before?  Why  does  he  come  to  you  when  he  is 
in  trouble?  And,  then,  that  concession  on  film  that  he  makes,  which  amounts  to 
nothing.  Beware  the  Greeks  bearing  gifts. 

Friend,  there  is  another  and  entirely  different  aspect  of  this  whole  matter:  The 
inalienable  right  of  the  dealer  to  buy  and  sell  what  he  wishes  is  restored  to  him. 
Throughout  the  land  the  rumble  of  freedom  is  swelling  to  augment  the  grand  reces- 
sional. We  stand  forth  with  renewed  courage  and  rejuvenated  spirit;  our  eyes  have 
fallen  on  the  promised  land. 

The  Seneca  Camera  Manufacturing  Co.  is  the  largest  independent  camera-mak- 
ing establishment  in  the  world,  and  commends  itself  again  to  your  notice.  We  feel 
that  the  time  is  here  when  our  goods  and  ourselves  are  worthy  of  your  serious  con- 
sideration. We  can  supply  you  with  everything  photographic  and  no  one  can  dis- 
criminate against  you  for  selling  our  goods.  Will  you  seek  a  better  acquaintance? 
To-day  is  the  day  and  this  is  the  hour. 
Yours,  for  an  early  reply, 

SENECA  CAMERA  MANUFACTURING  Co. 


BOSTON,  MASS.,  January  IS,  191S. 
Mr.  OSCAR  UNDERWOOD. 

DEAR  SIR:  Cut  the  duties  out  on  all  goods  sold  in  foreign  markets  cheaper  than  the 
same  is  sold  in  our  markets.  That  is  what  the  people  want,  though  the  majority  of 
those  who  appear  before  your  committee  have  an  ax  to  grind,  and  are  therefore  the 
only  enes  you  hear  from. 

I  note  testimony  of  Gennert  of  New  York.  There  is  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  photo- 
graphic trust.  I  am  an  amateur  photographer  of  25  years'  experience.  The  Eastman 
Co.,  and  its  allied  concerns,  Folmer-Swing,  Bausch  &  Lomb,  Rochester  Camera  Co., 
etc.,  are  in  my  opinion  all  in  it.  It  is  impossible  to  get  a  well-made  camera  or  lense 
that  is  made  in  this  country.  I  am  the  owner  of  a  Blair  English  compact  camera, 
made  before  they  were  gobbled  by  the  trust;  Honduras  mahogany,  brass  screwed, 
tongued  and  glued,  and  after  20  years  it  is  still  solid  and  sound.  That  camera  or  one 
as  good  can  not  be  found  in  our  markets  to-day  unless  foreign  built.  To-day  they  are 
all  basswood  or  white  wood,  glued  up  with  fish  glue  and  stained,  or  of  cheaper  cedar, 
filled  and  polished  to  look  and  sell  for  mahogany. 

I  have  just  imported  for  a  State  institution,  several  thousand  dollars  worth  of  genuine 
Carl  Zeiss  goods — lenses,  microscopes,  etc.  Comparing  them  with  supposedly  the 
same  goods  made  by  Bausch  &  Lomb  under  the  Zeiss  patents  show  plainly  that  they 
are  much  superior  to  the  American  make.  Their  execution  is  far  better,  definition 
and  covering  power,  and  the  mounting  is  superb.  Now,  I  do  not  doubt  that  Bausch 
&  Lomb  can  do  good  work,  but  they  don't  have  to  under  this  accursed  tariff  and 
therefore  they  won't.  There  are  no  American  goods  in  the  line  of  photographic  goods 
and  microscopes  that  can  compare  with  any  one  of  a  half  a  dozen  foreign  makers.  It 
all  works  to  the  bad — it  injures  the  workman,  saps  our  national  pride  in  our  goods, 
and  costs  those  who  want  the  best  a  lot  of  money  that  only  goes  into  the  pockets  of 
certain  people  who  have  no  patriotism  save  the  almighty  dollar.  Foreign  makers 
don't  even  send  their  best  goods  to  this  market — they  don't  have  to.  Their  second- 
rate  goods  are  better  than  our  best.  We  are  the  dumping  ground  for  the  second-rate 
products  of  the  world. 

Patents  are  bought  up  or  kept  out  of  the  market  in  other  ways,  so  that  such  concerns 
can  pay  ungodly  dividends  on  their  watered  stocks.  There  is  no  national  pride  in 


SCHEDULE   B.  .  899 

PARAGRAPH   108— LENSES,   CAMERAS,   ETC. 

our  products — there  never  will  be  until  we  can  get  men  in  our  Congress  that  can  hear 
the  shout  of  the  common  people  as  plainly  as  they  can  the  voice  of  the  dollar. 

This  is  hastily  written,  but  by  a  man  whose  ancestors  helped  build  this  country 
from  the  very  start,  and  taken  together  with  his  father,  voted  for  every  Democratic 
President  since  Jefferson. 

This  iniquitous  tariff  business  has  had  my  goat  so  many  years  that  once  started  I 
am  afraid  I  don't  know  enough  to  stop.     I  hope  that  we  are  at  the  end  of  building 
millionaires  at  the  expense  of  the  people,  but  we  shall  see  what  we  shall  see.     Our 
successes  in  the  past  were  but  a  change  of  vendors. 
Yours  truly, 

GEORGE  H.  UNDERBILL,  M.  D. 

Kodak  goods  could  be  sold  at  a  profit,  if  sold  at  all,  in  competition  with  the  rottenest 
goods  made  in  the  world.  A  tariff  needed  to  protect  such  goods?  Bah!  A  tariff  is 
needed  to  sell  them  at  all — they  are  the  cheapest  of  the  cheap.  This  is  but  cold 
frozen  fact. 

NEW  YORK,  Jan.  6,  1913. 
Mr.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman,  Ways  and  Means  Committee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  it  very  likely  will  not  be  possible  for  me  to  be  in  Washington  at  the 
forthcoming  hearings  on  tariff  schedules,  I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  by  letter, 
lending  whatever  assistance  I  can. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  I  have  always  fought  for  tariff  reduction,  believing  the 
present  rate  top  high  in  my  particular  line,  which,  as  you  will  notice  from  this  letter 
head,  is  in  scientific  instruments  and  optical  apparatus  and  cameras.  I  sincerely 
believe  that  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  cameras,  binoculars,  microscopes,  telescopes, 
and  other  high-class  optical  instruments  from  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  25  per  cent 
ad  valorem  as  assessed  under  the  former  Wilson  tariff,  is  fully  sufficient. 

This  lower  rate  of  duty  will  certainly  not  put  out  of  business  any  American  manu- 
facturer. In  the  first  place,  as  regards  the  camera  line,  only  the  cheaper  grades  are 
made  here  by  about  three  or  four  concerns,  of  which  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  is  the 
biggest  one,  and  an  iron-bound  trust  at  that.  These  companies,  particularly  the 
Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  will,  even  if  the  tariff  should  be  lowered  to  25  per  cent,  be  able 
to  make  just  as  big  profits  on  their  goods  as  heretofore.  Of  course  that  company  is  by 
coercive  trust  measures  so  well  entrenched  that  independent  camera  manufacturers 
do  not  have  much  show  any  way,  and  it  is  therefore  in  the  interest  of  the  people  in 
general  to  open  the  way  for  competition.  Nevertheless  mostly  foreign  cameras  of  the 
higher  grade  are  imported,  which  are  not  made  here. 

The  Eastman  Kodak  Co.  declared  in  the  last  few  years  dividends  of  between  50 
and  60  per  cent,  and  they  have  a  surplus  now  of  a  larger  amount  than  their  actual 
capital  consists  of.  This  surplus  will  be  converted  into  watered  stock  within  a  short 
time  according  to  reliable  information.  The  present  stock  of  the  Kodak  Co.  sells 
upward  of  $700  per  share. 

Now  regarding  microscopes.  The  fact  that  in  spite  of  the  45  per  cent  tariff  on 
foreign  microscopes  the  American  manufacturers  have  been  able  to  reduce  their  prices 
since  the  enaction  of  the  Dingley  tariff  by  fully  one-third  or  more  shows  conclusively 
that  the  profits  they  have  made  before  they  reduced  the  prices  were  very  high  and  even 
now,  at  the  reduced  prices  they  are  making  very  handsome  profits  and  are  able  to 
compete  very  successfully  with  foreign  microscopes,  even  on  the  duty-free  basis. 
By  "duty-free  importation"  I  mean  that  duty  to  such  educational  institutions,  which 
are  entitled  to  duty-free  entry  under  the  act  of  Congress,  is  remitted.  Consequently 
it  is  evident  that  a  reduction  to  25  per  cent  duty  on  microscopes  will  not  hurt  the 
American  manufacturers  in  competition  with  foreign  goods. 

Now  as  regards  opera  glasses,  prism  binoculars,  etc.,  very  few  are  made  here  to 
*peak  of.  There  were  a  few  prism  binoculars  made  in  Cleveland  and  some  in  Roch- 
ester, but  practically  the  only  prism  binoculars  now  made  are  manufactured  by  the 
Bausch  &  Lomb  Optical  Co.,  who  uphold  their  prices  to  the  same  level  as  the  imported 
equivalent,  the  Carl  Zeiss  prism  binocular,  after  which  they  are  modeled.  Should  the 
tariff  on  these  be  reduced  to  25  per  cent,  and  consequently  the  selling  price  of  the 
imported  ones  be  lowered,  the  price  for  the  few  made  here  in  America  will  also  be 
consequently  lowered,  but  will  still  leave  a  handsome  profit  to  the  manufacturers. 

Field  glasses  and  opera  glasses  are  not  made  in  this  country  at  all.  Neither  are 
telescopes  except  a  few  special  ones  made,  for  instance,  by  the  John  A.  Brashear  Co., 


900  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH   108— LENSES,   CAMERAS,   ETC. 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  and  even  these  people  import  most  of  the  optical  parts  from  abroad, 
chiefly  doing  the  mounting  here. 

Photographic  lenses  (also  optical  instruments)  could  also  stand  a  reduction  in  tariff 
duty,  as  the  majority  of  photographic  lenses  are  imported  notwithstanding  the  high 
present  duty  of  45  per  cent,  and  in  spite  of  some  domestic  manufacturers  having 
combined  with  certain  foreign  firms  as  to  scientific  data,  thus  showing  that  the  domes- 
tic manufacturers,  even  with  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  could  easily  meet  foreign  com- 
petition. 

Finally,  I  want  to  say  a  word  as  to  the  duty-free  clause,  and  that  is  this:  That  all 
those  laboratories  engaged  in  scientific  research  work  should  be  entitled  to  duty-free 
importation  of  high-class  scientific  instruments  only,  not  in  everything  they  need, 
as  the  domestic  manufacturer  has  to  be  protected  as  well.  It  is  incongruous  to  think, 
for  instance,  that  the  State  department  of  health  of  say,  Oklahoma  or  Arizona,  with 
its  small  needs  should  be  entitled  to  duty-free  importation,  whereas  such  a  large 
department  as  the  health  department  of  the  city  of  New  York,  with  its  many  research 
laboratories,  is  required  to  pay  duty  on  everything  they  import. 

Mind  you,  I  do  not  believe  in  having  everything  imported  free  of  duty,  but  the  laws 
should  be  more  equalized,  that  whatever  importations,  like,  for  instance,  the  research 
laboratories  of  New  York  City,  Philadelphia,  Washington,  etc.,  do  need  scientific 
instruments  not  made  in  this  country,  they  should  be  entitled  to  duty-free  entry  of 
same.  A  like  tolerance  should  be  shown  toward  laboratories  of  large  hospitals.  It 
is  incongruous  to  think,  for  instance,  that  a  hospital  spending  thousands  of  dollars 
per  year  for  laboratory  research  and  buying,  for  instance,  say,  microscopes  worth 
$200  each,  should  be  required  to  pay  duty  on  the  instrument,  whereas  a  little 
country  "University",  so  called,  may  get  its  single  $20  microscope  in  free  of  duty. 

It  is  self-evident  that  a  hospital  with  a  research  laboratory  is  doing  more  to  advance 
science  than  this  little  country  university,  and  nowadays,  at  the  least  in  all  larger 
cities,  the  men  working  in  hospital  laboratories  are  all  connected  with  the  staff  of 
scientific  institutions,  if  not  a  part  of  the  faculty  thereof.  I  could  name  you,  for 
instance,  numerous  instances  of  such  close  affiliation  and  cooperation  in  New  York 
City  alone,  not  to  speak  of  other  cities. 

If  there  is  any  other  information  you  desire  to  obtain  in  regard  to  optical  and  scien- 
tific instruments,  I  shall  be  pleased  to  give  you  same  as  I  feel  myself  particularly  fit 
to  do  so  through  my  very  long  experience  in  that  line,  which  is  also  highly  regarded 
here  by  the  general  appraisers,  for  whom  I  have,  at  a  number  of  times,  appeared  as 
qualifying  witness. 

I  do  hope  that  this  letter  may  help  toward  reduction  and  equalization  of  tariff  duty 
for  revenue  only,  which  I  strongly  believe  in  and  work  for. 

Respectfully,  yours,  MAX  MEYER. 


PROVIDENCE,  R.  I.,  January  4,  191S. 
The  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D .  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  regard  to  the  metal  schedule  which  we  understand  comes  up  on  the 
10th  of  this  month,  we  would  like  to  file  the  following  brief  as  to  why  we  feel  the  duty 
on  optical  goods  should  remain  where  it  is. 

(1)  We  find  the  average  wages  paid  in  Rath  enow,  Germany,  for  labor  on  optical 
goods  is  as  follows:  Girl  apprentices,  $1  to  2  per  week  for  first  three  years,  and  $3  to 
$4  after  three  years.     For  men,  SI. 25  to  $2.50  for  first  four  years,  and  an  average  wage 
of  $(->  thereafter.     The  lowest  wage?  paid  by  us  for  girls  is  $7.50  and  for  men  $9  per  week. 

(2)  We  feel  that  it  will  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  country  to  have  a  tariff  equal 
to  the  difference  in  waaes  paid  in  this  country  and  abroad,  otherwise  we  will  be  unable 
to  keep  up  the  high  standard  of  quality  which  has  been  maintained  heretofore. 

(3)  Under  the  present  tariff  we  have  been  able  to  set  a  standard  which  up  to  the 
present  time  has  not  been  approached  by  our  foreign  competitors,  although  they  are 
making  vast  strides  by  sending  men  into  this  country  to  work  at  the  bench  and  buy 
American  machinery,  so  we  feel  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  before  they  will  be  on 
the  same  plane. 

(4)  Furthermore,  owing  to  fair  competition  in  this  country  the  manufacturer's  price 
has  been  trending  steadily  downward,  although  the  consumer  pays  the  same  price  he 
did  10  years  ago.     Hence  he  would  not  benefit  by  a  lower  tariff,  as  he  would  only  be 
paying  the  same  price  for  an  inferior  article  which  we  would  be  forced  to  manufacture 
to  meet  foreign  competition. 


SCHEDULE  B.  901 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

We  might  add  that  the  retailers'  gross  profit  of  300  or  400  per  cent  is  not  exorbitant, 
as  an  oculist  or  optician  has  been  obliged  to  spend  years  of  preparation  for  his  work, 
which  can  be  likened  to  that  of  any  other  profession. 
An  oculist  or  optician  who  makes  more  than  a  fair  living  is  the  exception. 
Finally,  it  will  be  readily  understood  from  the  foregoing  that  a  lower  tariff  will  mean 
a  poorer  American  product,  less  than  a  living  wage  to  the  employee  of  this  industry, 
and  no  benefit  to  the  ultimate  consumer. 

Yours,  very  respectfully,  MARTIN-COPELAND  Co., 

L.  C.  MARTIN. 

MOVING-PICTURE  CAMERAS. 

NEW  YORK,  July  1,  191t. 
Hon.  W.  E.  TUTTLE,  Jr.,  ' 

Stoneleigh  Park,  Westfield,  N.  J. 

DEAR  SIR:  As  a  member  of  vour  congressional  district  and  one  who  voted  for  you 
at  the  last  election,  we  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the  duty  on  moving-picture 
cameras.  I  am  interested  in  a  firm  importing  moving-picture  cameras,  on  which  there 
is  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  grossly  unfair  both  to  ourselves  and  the  many  moving-picture 
men  and  others  who  are  using  moving-picture  cameras.  There  are  no  makers  of  the 
same  in  the  United  States  worthy  of  mention,  their  cameras  being  inferior  in  make, 
and  their  numbers,  I  think,  one  or  two.  We  see  no  need  of  protection,  as  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  American  firms  to  duplicate  in  any  wa>  foreign  moving-picture  cameras.  We 
hope  we  may  count  on  you  to  use  your  best  efforts  to  have  this  unjust  duty  taken  off. 
Hoping  we  may  hear  of  your  success  in  this  matter,  we  remain, 

Yours,  very  truly,  R.  M.  MOORE. 

PARAGRAPH  109. 

Stained  or  painted  glass  windows,  or  parts  thereof,  and  all  mirrors,  not 
exceeding  in  size  one  hundred  and  forty-four  square  inches,  with  or  without 
frames  or  cases,  and  all  glass  or  manufactures  of  glass  or  paste  or  of  which 
glass  or  paste  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
See  Joseph  Auerbach,  page  835. 

STAINED   WINDOW   GLASS. 

STATEMENT    OF   T.   M.    LANE,   ON   BEHALF   OF    MAYER  &  CO., 
STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  On  what  paragraph  do  you  speak,  Mr.  Lane  ? 

Mr.  LANE.  Paragraph  109,  stained-glass  windows. 

I  appear  in  behalf  of  certain  importers  of  stained-glass  windows, 
and  just  at  this  point  I  would  like  to  correct  a  misstatement  that  I 
see  indorsed  on  our  brief,  apparently  through  inadvertence,  that  we 
appear  for  importers  of  stained  window  glass  and  stained-glass 
windows.  We  do  not  appear  for  importers  of  stained  window  glass, 
using  that  term  as  implying  glass  in  sheets,  in  bulk  quantities.  The 
only  thing  we  ask  your  committee  to  deal  with,  so  far  as  our  applica- 
tion is  concerned,  is  the  item  of  stained-glass  windows.  As  to  those, 
we  ask  for  a  reduction  in  the  present  rate  of  duty  of  45  per  cent,  and 
we  ask  you  to  restore  to  the  free  list  the  provision  for  stained-glass 
windows  imported  for  presentation  to  churches. 

Our  case  is  stated  in  our  brief,  and  I  will  take  but  a  very  few 
minutes  to  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  salient  points  only. 

We  are  asking  you  to  conform  the  provisions  of  the  new  act  to  the 
immemorial  policy  of  Congress,  an  exception  to  which  has  existed  under 
the  McKinley  Act  and  the  Dingley  tariff  and  the  tariff  of  1909,  with 
respect  to  stained-glass  windows. 


902  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

Prior  to  the  McKinley  tariff  these  windows  were  admitted  free 
under  the  provision  for  paintings  imported  for  churches.  When  the 
McKinley  tariff  was  enacted  certain  manufacturers  of  stained  glass 
windows  appeared  before  this  committee  and  urgently  represented 
that  the  industry  of  manufacturing  stained  glass  windows  was  then  in 
its  inf  ancy  in  this  country  and  needed  protection.  The  result  was  the 
passage  of  a  law  which  contained  a  specific  provision  for  stained  glass 
windows — the  first,  I  think,  that  had  appeared  in  the  tariff  up  to  that 
tim&— at  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  and  for  a  specific  exclusion  inserted  in  the 
free  list  excluding  stained-glass  windows  from  the  provision  statuary  and 
works  of  art  imported  for  presentation  to  churches.  The  result  of  that  is 
that  since  the  McKinley  tariff  of  1890  up  to  the  present  time  this  industry 
in  this  country  has  had  the  benefit  of  a  protective  duty  of  45  percent,  and 
churches  have  been  unable  to  import  these  windows  as  they  formerly 
were,  free  of  duty,  with  the  exception  of  the  brief  interim  under  the 
Wilson  tariff,  when  they  were  again  given  free  entry,  and  the  duty  was 
reduced  to  35  cents.  In  other  words,  in  20  years  out  of  23  this  industry 
has  had  an  absolute  protective  rate  of  45  per  cent.  The  industry  is 
not  one  that  is  controlled  by  a  trust,  so  far  as  I  can  find  out,  either 
here  or  abroad.  Stained  glass  windows  are  the  products  of  a  few 
manufacturers  scattered  around  through  Germany,  Austria,  Great 
Britain — more  in  the  nature  of  ateliers  than  factories.  The  business 
itself  is  essentially  an  artistic  business,  the  production  of  a  more  or 
less  high  art  in  that  country,  and  I  think  the  same  is  true  in  this 
country.  The  revenue  which  the  Government  derives,  of  course,  is 
not  enormous,  though  I  suppose  it  is  substantial.  I  have  noticed  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1911,  this  paragraph,  which  covers 
glass  windows,  stained  or  painted,  and  mirrors,  not  exceeding  144 
square  inches  in  size,  brought  a  duty  of  $161,000.  The  mirrors  are 

¥robably  substantial.  There  is  no  separation  of  these  two  items, 
he  total  from  glass  windows,  stained  or  painted,  and  mirrors  was 
$161,000.  The  result  probably  is  that  a  very  much  smaller  quan- 
tity is  sold  in  this  country  under  a  rate  of  45  per  cent  than  would 
be  under  a  rate  of  25  or  even  35  per  cent. 

The  proposal  that  we  make  to  you  for  a  reduction  in  rate  to  25  per 
cent  would  mean  practicality  that  churches — and  perhaps  9  out  of 
10  of  these  windows  are  bought  by  churches — 

Mr.  HARRISON  (interposing).  Is  it  not  now  the  custom  of  Congress 
to  pass  bills  refunding  to  churches  the  duties  that  they  have  paid  for 
stained-glass  windows? 

Mr.  LAXE.  If  there  have  been  such  bills  passed,  they  must  have 
been  very  few  in  number  in  comparison  with  the  number  of  churches 
that  buy  this  glass,  for  practicaUy  all  of  it  is  sold  to  churches. 

Mr.  PP:TERS.  The  only  bill  that  was  passed  was  in  a  case  where  a 
contract  was  made  to  purchase  the  glass  brought  under  a  ruling  of 
the  Treasury  Department  that  it  would  come  in  free,  or  the  local 
collector  that  it  would  come  in  free,  and  later  such  ruling  was 
reversed  and  the  duty  collected. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That,  was  the  reason  that  the  bill  was  passed. 

Mr.  LAXE.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  this  is  essentially  a  proper 
subject  for  treatment  by  a  protective  duty  anyway.  There  are  a 
few  high-class  studios  in  this  country,  like  the  Tiffany  studios  and  Lamb 
studios,  who  appeared  before  the  committee  at  the  last  hearing  under 


SCHEDULE   B.  903 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

the  tariff  of  1909  and  asked  for  a  high  rate  of  duty  on  this  article, 
and  yet  I  suppose  that  any  one  of  the  artists  connected  with  those 
concerns — and  they  have  some  high-class  artists  connected  with 
them — would  resent  the  imputation  that  the  American  artist  needed 
a  protective  duty  to  continue  his  business. 

The  request  made  at  the  last  tariff  hearing  was  a  very  modest  one. 
I  very  briefly  would  like  to  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  only 
concrete  illustration  of  the  cost  of  manufacturing  these  articles  abroad 
as  against  the  cost  hi  this  country  that  was  given  at  the  last  hearing. 
It  is  found  on  pages  1232  to  1235  of  tariff  hearings  of  1909,  which 
I  have  open  before  me,  and  it  was  there  attempted  to  show  that  the 
factory  cost  of  making  abroad  a  window  containing  165  feet  of 
glass  was  about  $120,  selling  price  about  $216,  and  the  modest  request 
was  made  that  a  specific  rate  of  $2  per  square  foot  and  20  per  cent  be 
substituted  for  the  then  existing  rate,  and  a  very  simple  arithmetical 
process  will  show  that  that  rate  on  a  window  containing  165  square 
feet  of  glass  valued  at  $216  would  be  $259,  or  about  120  per  cent. 
I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  committee  refused  to  raise  the  rate, 
which  the  highest  of  the  protective  tariffs  had  contained,  and  con- 
tinued it  at  45  per  cent.  This  industry  survived  the  rate  of  35  per 
cent,  and  the  provision  for  free  entry  for  windows  imported  for 
churches  which  existed  under  the  Wilson  tariff,  and  it  is  a  very 
thriving,  very  strong  industry  in  this  country  to-day.  It  is  an 
industry  which  does  and  should  stand  on  its  merits  or  its  ability  to 
make  glass  that  has  a  high  artistic  character,  and  it  should  not 
ask  any  protection, 

As  it  is,  if  you  will  reduce  this  duty,  continue  a  duty  and  reduce  it, 
the  churches  that  import  windows  directly  for  purposes  of  construct- 
ing new  buildings  will  pay  that  duty  without  question.  If  you  restore 
to  the  free  list  the  provision  for  the  free  entry  of  glass  presented  to 
churches  you  will  merely  restore  the  provision  of  the  tariff  as  of  1894 
and  the  practice  as  it  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  1883,  and  vou  will, 
we  think,  conform  the  law  to  the  long-established  policy  of  Congress, 
which  has  been  to  exempt  not  only  stained-glass  windows  but  all 
works  of  art  of  all  descriptions,  of  regalia,  gems,  statuary,  specimens 
of  sculpture  when  imported  by  churches  or  imported  for  presentation 
to  churches. 

A  great  many  windows  brought  into  this  country,  as  you  natu- 
rally will  infer,  are  memorial  windows  and  are  very  beautiful  works  of 
art,  and  it  seems  almost  irreverent  to  tax  the  feelings  that  inspire 
the  donors  to  give  such  beautiful  works  of  art  to  churches. 

The  American  manufacturers  have  not  apparently  been  heard  on 
this  question  as  yet,  and  I  do  not  know  wnat  figures  they  will  lay 
before  you,  but  I  want  to  ask  for  just  a  moment  your  consideration 
of  the  figures  they  submitted  at  the  last  tariff  hearing. 

The  window  that  they  showed  as  typical  they  said  could  be  made 
in  Munich  for  3  marks  per  square  foot.  We  have  produced  before  you 
and  printed  in  this  brief  an  affidavit  of  Simbert  Sallinger,  a  certified  ac- 
countant, who  went  over  the  books  of  Mayer  &  Co.,  the  largest  stained 
glass  window  manufacturers  in  Germany,  and  their  factory  shows  for  a 
year's  output  the  average  factory  cost  of  at  least  8.5  marks;  nearly 
8.58  marks  per  square  foot;  nearly  three  times  what  the  American 


904  TABIFF  HEABINGS. 

PABAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

manufacturer  asserted  the  German  cost  to  be.  It  was  further  asserted 
that  that  window  could  be  sold  in  Germany  for  5.5  marks  per  square 
foot.  Under  the  present  rule  of  appraising  this  glass  at  the  foreign 
market  value,  the  New  York  customhouse  is  to-day  passing  it  at 
an  average  of,  I. think  it  is  safe  to  say,  nearly  20  marks  per  square 
foot,  certainly  over  15  marks.  The  scale  is  a  sliding  one,  depending 
on  the  number  of  figures  in  the  window.  For  one  figure  it  is  18 
marks  per  square  foot;  two  figures,  it  is  20  marks  per  square  foot; 
three  figures,  it  is  22  marks  per  square  foot;  and  four  figures,  it  is 
23  marks  per  square  foot.  The  very  lowest  value  stated  in  this 
schedule  of  appraised  values  at  present  in  force  is  8  marks  per  square 
foot  for  plain  ornament.  And  these  are  the  duties  on  which  I  believe 
every  importer  of  German  stained  glass  is  paying  duties  at  the  New 
York  customhouse  at  the  present  tune.  And  notwithstanding  that, 
we  find  the  American  manufacturer  coming  before  your  committee 
at  the  last  tariff  hearing  and  asserting  that  a  window  of  that  kind 
could  be  sold  for  5.5  marks  per  square  foot  in  Germany. 

That  is  all  of  your  time  that  I  will  take. 

I  would  like  permission  to  file  this  brief,  and  if  the  committee 
will  allow  it,  the  petitions  from  various  churches  and  ecclesiastical 
authorities. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  may  be  filed. 

Mr.  LANE.  Is  there  any  objection  to  my  later  presenting  some  pe- 
titions that  may  come  to  me  here  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  present  them  to  the  committee  when 
you  receive  them. 

The  following  petition  was  filed  at  a  later  date: 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIRS:  The  undersigned  res]  e  t fully  urges  upon  your  committee  and  Congress 
that  the  duty  on  stained  glass  windows  shall  be  reduced  to  25  per  cent  and  that  pro- 
vision be  made  in  the  free  list  of  the  new  tariff  act  for  the  free  entry  of  stained  glass 
windows,  statuary,  and  casts  of  sculpture  imported  for  the  use  of  churches  and  other 
societies  of  a  religious  or  educational  nature. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

E.  F.  Prendergast,  Archbishop  of  Philadelphia;  P.  J.  Riordan,  Arch- 
bishop of  San  Francisco;  Charles  H.  Culton,  Bishop  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y.; 
James  J.  Keane,  Archbishop  of  Dubuque;  D.  J.  O'Connell,  Bishop 
of  Richmond;  Joseph  Schremtz,  Bishop  of  Toledo;  Regis  Canenin 
Bishop  of  Pittsburgh;  Henry  Gabriels,  Bishop  of  Ogde'^sburg;  James 
II.  Blenk.  Archbishop  of  New  Orleans;  George  Albert  C  uertin,  Bishop 
of  Manchester;  John  E.  Fitzmaurice,  Bishop  of  Erie:  Henry  Joseph 
Richter,  Bishop  of  Grand  Rapids;  John  S.  Foley,  Bishop  of  Detroit; 
Camillas  P.  Maes,  Bishop  of  Covington;  Henry  Moeller,  Archbishop 
of  Cincinnati:  Francis  Silas  Chatarcl,  Bishop  of  Indianapolis;  Herman 
J.  Alerding.  Bishop  of  Fort  Wayne;  Thomas  Sebastian  Nyrne,  Bishop 
of  Nashville:  Henry  P.  Northrop,  Bishop  of  Charleston,  S.  C.;  John 
Janssen,  Bishop  of  Belleville;  E.  A.  Gauey,  Bishop  of  Altoona; 
James  Cardinal  Gibbons,  of  Baltimore. 


SCHEDULE   B.  905 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  CHANGES  IN  WORDING  OF  PARAGRAPH  716,  AS  IT  RELATES  TO  THE 
IMPORTATION  OP  STAINED-GLASS  WINDOWS. 

'Presented  by  Frederick  E.  Mayer,  138  W.  Pomona  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa.] 

The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  undersigned  respectfully  suggests  that  the  word  "except," 
preceding  the  phrase  "stained  or  painted  window  glass,  or  stained  or  painted  glass 
windows, "  as  found  in  paragraph  716,  be  retained,  and  that  the  entire  sentence  relating 
to  stained  glass  windows  be  incorporated  in  its  present  form  in  the  new  tariff  act  now 
under  consideration  by  your  honorable  body.  My  reasons  for  urging  this  action  upon 
your  committee,  are  as  follows: 

(1)  While  it  is  impossible  to  make  accurate  statement,  a  fair  approximation  shows 
that  of  the  stained  glass  windows  sold  to  American  churches  about  85  per  cent  are 
windows  of  foreign  manufacture. 

(2)  If  the  foregoing  statement  be  true,  then  the  present  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem is  scarcely  adequate  to  protect  the  American  artist. 

(3)  No  American  manufacturer  of  leaded  and  stained  glass  depends  exclusively 
upon  his  ability  to  sell  his  stained  glass  church  windows  in  competition  with  the 
product  of  the  foreign  maker  of  stained  glass.     As  a  matter  of  fact  a  considerable  pro- 
portion of  our  business  is  composed  of  opalescent  and  ornamental  glass  such  as  is  used 
in  private  dwellings,  business  buildings,  and  public  buildings. 

Foreign  manufacturers  can  not  readily  compete  with  us  in  this  class  of  work,  because 
the  rapidity  of  American  building  construction  prevents  the  prompt  delivery  of  for- 
eign goods;  and,  second,  because  of  the  architects'  specifications,  which  usually 
require  inspection  of  the  commodity  during  the  course  of  manufacture.  The  advan- 
tage, therefore,  accruing  to  the  American  manufacture  of  commercial  stained  glass 
is  peculiarly  local  in  character  and  is  not  directly  the  result  of  tariff  legislation. 
Stained-glass  windows  for  churches,  however,  are  usually  ordered  six  months  or  even 
a  year  in  advance  of  their  installation.  These  long-time  contracts,  therefore,  enable 
the  foreign  makers  of  stained-glass  windows  to  use  their  cheaper-paid  labor  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  American  maker  of  stained-glass  windows,  thus  enabling  the  foreigner 
to  control  the  sales  of  about  85  per  cent  of  the  stained-glass  windows  in  America. 
The  production  of  the  ecclesiastical  stained-glass  windows  by  American  makers  should 
therefore  be  directly  encouraged  by  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  about 
50  per  cent. 

(4)  The  making  of  ecclesiastical  stained-glass  windows  represents  the  higher  devel- 
opment of  the  glass  painters'  art.     Our  best  results  are  almost  invariably  attained  in 
the  making  of  the  stained-glass  windows  for  churches.     Placing  upon  the  free  list 
stained  glass- windows  designed  for  churches  would  rob  the  American  maker  of  stained- 
glass  windows  of  his  opportunity  to  sell  his  admittedly  skilled  labor  upon  a  fair 
competitive  basis. 

His  only  hope  under  free  importation  would  be  in  finding  a  prospective  donor  with 
sufficient  patriotism  to  give  preference  to  the  American  maker,  irrespective  of  the 
selling  price  of  the  window. 

Or  his  other  alternative  would  be  to  find  a  prospective  purchaser  who  would  place 
an  order  with  him  for  purely  personal  reasons. 

(5)  In  the  brief  filed  by  Mayer  &  Co.  with  your  committee,  I  find  the  following  state- 
ment: "The  present  tariff  has  imposed  a  severe  and  burdensome  tax  upon  churches, 
and  upon  those  whose  religious  inclinations  have  prompted  them  to  make  gifts  of  the 
beautiful  devotional  works  of  art  to  churches."     This  statement,  gentlemen,  is  not 
true.     Stained  glass  church  windows  are  seldom  paid  for  out  of  the  funds  of  church 
corporations.     They  are,  in  nearly  every  instance,  the  gift  of  wealthy  individual 
donors,  who  either  make  their  provisional  donation  to  the  church  or  who  buy  direct 
from  the  maker.     It  would,  therefore,  be  no  hardship  upon  the  church  corporation 
were  the  churches  obliged  to  pay  the  present  duty  or  a  higher  duty  of,  say,  50  per  cent 
ad  valorem. 

(6)  In  the  brief  filed  by  Mayer  &  Co.,  I  find  the  following  statement:  "We  respect- 
fully submit  that  the  stained  glass  industry  is  no  longer  in  its  infancy."     The  American 
artist  cheerfully  admits  this  assertion .    Figuratively  speaking,  we  are  no  longer  infants. 
We  are  boys  who  have  just  put  on  their  long  trousers.     We  are  young  and  hopeful  and 
enthusiastic,  but  we  are  weak  in  comparison  with  the  corporation  of  Mayer  &  Co.,  of 
Munich.     This  corporation  has  a  highly  developed  factory  svstem  in  Germany,  and 
has  firmly  established  agencies  who  sell  to  Central  America,  Mexico,  South  America, 
Australia,  Africa,  and  continental  Europe. 


906  TAEIFP   HEARINGS. 

PABAGBAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

We  respectfully  ask  that  your  committee  do  not  place  a  club  in  the  hands  of  this 
corporation  that  would  give  it  an  overpowering  advantage. 

(7)  Included  in  the  brief  of  Mayer  &  Co.  are  two  apparently  distinct  propositions: 
First,  that  the  duty  on  stained  or  painted  glass  windows,  or  parts  thereof,  as  found 
in  paragraph  109,  be  reduced  from  45  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.     The  second  propo- 
sition is  that  the  word  "including"  be  substituted  for  "except,"  preceding  the  phrase 
"stained  or  painted  window  glass,  or  stained  or  painted  glass  windows,"  as  found  in 
paragraph  716. 

Right  here,  permit  me  to  show  you  the  colored  gentleman  in  the  woodpile.  Your 
committee  is  asked  to  change  paragraph  716,  so  as  to  give  the  privilege  of  free  entry  to 
stained-glass  windows  intended  for  church  use.  If  you  grant  this  privilege,  para- 
graph 109,  imposing  an  ad  valorem  duty,  would  be  of  noneffect,  because  your  appraiser 
would  undoubtedly  be  confronted  with  this  statement:  "My  dear  sir,  these  stained- 
gkss  windows  are  a  donation  to  a  certain  church,  and  under  paragraph  716  they  can 
not  be  subject  to  the  imposition  of  any  tax  whatever."  A  recapitulation  of  my  state- 
ment shows  that  of  the  total  number  of  stained-glass  windows  sold  to  American  churches 
for  church  use,  about  85  per  cent  are  made  by  foreign  manufacturers,  and  that  virtu- 
ally all  stained-glass  windows  sold  for  church  use  are  primarily  presented  to  the 
churches  as  donations.  The  American  maker  of  stained-glass  windows  is  therefore 
confronted  with  the  proposition  that  he  makes  stained-glass  windows  for  church  use 
under  absolutely  free-trade  conditions. 

(8)  To  place  stained  glass  upon  the  free  list  would  deprive  the  Government  of  an 
annual  revenue  of  about  $120,000.     The  last  report  given  by  the  Bureau  of  Foreign 
and  Domestic  Commerce  is  as  follows:  Imports  of  glass  windows,  value,  $266,408;  a 
duty  at  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  $119,883. 

If  you  place  stained-glass  windows,  intended  for  church  use,  upon  the  free  list,  you 
give  up  about  $120,000  annually,  at  the  same  time  presenting  to  the  importer  and 
foreign  manufacturers  additional  profits  by  reason  of  the  increased  volume  of  business 
that  would  accrue  to  them. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

FREDERICK  E.  MAYER. 

IMPORTERS  OF  STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS  AND  STAINED-GLASS  WINDOWS. 

Curie,  Smith  &  Maxwell,  attorneys  for  importers  of  stained  window  glass  and  stained 
glass  windows,  32  Broadway,  New  York  City.  Thomas  M.  Lane,  of  counsel. 

To  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEX:  We  beg  to  submit  the  following  brief  in  behalf  of  the  importers  of 
stained  glass  windows,  who  ask  for  a  reduction  of  duty  on  said  windows,  or  for  their 
free  entry  when  imported  for  churches. 

Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  McKinley  tariff  of  1890,  stained  glass  windows  portray- 
ing biblical  and  relisrious  subjects  were  admitted  free  of  duty  when  imported  for 
presentation  to  religious  societies.  (Par.  819,  tariff  act  of  1883;  146  U.  S.,  71,  73.) 

The  McKinley  tariff  of  1S90  (par.  122)  made  specific  provision  for  stained  glass 
windows  and  stained  window  glass  at  a  duty  of  45  per  cent  and  expressly  excluded 
such  stained  glass  and  stained  glass  windows  from  the  provision  exempting  paintings 
imported  for  presentation  to  churches  (par.  757)  .  This  action  was  taken  upon  the 
urgent  plea  of  manufacturing  interests  that  the  stained  glass  window  industry  was 
then  an  infant  industry  in  this  country  and  entitled  to  protection.  A  decision  of  the 
United  States  Supieme  Coin  I  upon  a  test  case  taken  up  under  this  tariff  held  that, 
in  view  of  the  exclusion  of  stained  glass  windows  from  free  entry  under  paragraph  757, 
such  exception  must  be  considered  implied  in  the  other  paragraphs  relating  to  impor- 
tations for  churches.  (U.  S.  r  Perry,  146  U.  S.,  71.)  This  decision  definitely  fixed 
the  duty  on  all  stained  glass  windows,  for  whatever  purpose  imported,  at  45  per  cent, 
and  gave  the  domestic  interests  the  fullest  measure  of  protection. 

From  1890  to  the  present  day  this  rate  has  been  continued  except  for  a  brief  interval 
of  three  years  under  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894,  when  the  rate  on  stained  glass  windows 
w;>s  reduced  to  35  per  cent  (pnr.  1021,  and  the  provision  admitting  such  windows  to 
free  entry  when  imported  for  presentation  to  churches  was  restored  to  the  free  list 
('par.  686).  The  Dinyley  I  a  riff  of  1897  reenacted  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1890,  and 
the  Payne-Aldrich  tariff  of  1909  continued  them. 

Since  this  protect  ion  was  given  it.  the  stained  glass  window  industry  in  this  country 
has  grown  and  llonrishod  and  H  now  an  established  business.  This  is  evidenced  by 


SCHEDULE   B.  907 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

the  number  of  houses  doing  business  in  this  line,  some  of  them  important  and  prosper- 
ous. A  glance  at  the  published  hearings  on  this  subject  under  the  various  tariffs  is 
sufficient  evidence  of  this. 

Nevertheless,  when  this  question  came  up  at  the  preliminary  hearing  on  the  Payne- 
Aldrich  act  of  1909,  the  American  manufactiuers,  notwithstanding  the  growth  of  their 
industry  under  a  protective  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  they  had  enjoyed 
for  practically  18  years,  and  which  had  not  been  seriously  unpaired  by  an  interval  of 
three  years,  during  which  competitive  conditions  with  European  manufacturers  were 
restored,  petitioned  Congress  for  even  greater  protection  than  they  had  hitherto  en- 
joyed .  We  anticipate  that  a  similar  effort  will  be  made  before  your  committee  and  will 
briefly  discuss  some  of  the  representations  male  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
of  the  Sixty-first  Congress,  upon  the  assumption  that  they  may  be  renewed  here. 

The  application  of  the  Von  Gerichten  Art  Glass  Co.,  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  found  in 
Tariff  Hearings,  1908-9,  Schedule  B,  pages  1232-1235,  offers  a  fair  example  of  the 
extravagant  demand  for  protection  made  by  the  domestic  manufacturers.  This  com- 
pany asked  that  a  specific  rate  of  $2  per  square  foot  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  be 
substituted  for  the  existing  rate  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  represents  that  this 
difference  in  rate  reflects  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  manufacture  of  the  same  window 
hi  Europe  and  in  the  United  States. 

They  use  for  purposes  of  illustration  a  window  containing  165  square  feet  of  glass, 
which  they  say  can  be  sold  in  Europe  for  $216.  The  duty  on  165  square  feet  of  glass, 
at  $2  per  square  foot,  is  $330,  and  the  duty  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  the  foreign 
value  of  $216  is  $43.20.  The  total  duty  proposed  was  therefore  $259.20  on  a  window 
sold  abroad  for  $216;  a  duty  equivalent  to  120  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

This  rate  was  nearly  three  times  as  high  as  had  ever  been  placed  upon  stained-glass 
windows  by  the  most  radical  of  the  protective  tariffs.  An  industry  demanding  such 
a  rate  of  protection  would  evidently  be  of  the  "hothouse"  variety,  and  its  existence 
in  this  country  could  only  be  assured  by  taxing  the  consumer  to  an  extent  entirely 
out  of  proportion  to  the  importance  of  maintaining  such  an  anemic  industry.  But 
there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  industry  of  manufacturing  stained-glass  windows 
in  this  country  is  not  of  such  a  character  and  needs  no  such  measure  of  protection. 
It  has  grown  strong  under  a  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  was  apparently  not 
seriously  injured  by  the  rate  of  35  per  cent  and  the  privilege  of  free  entry  for  windows 
imported  for  churches,  which  prevailed  under  the  tariff  act  of  1894. 

It  is  incredible  that  your  committee  would  seriously  entertain  a  proposal  to  increase 
the  present  high  rate  of  protection.  To  do  so  would  be  to  raise  an  effective  tariff  bar 
against  some  of  the  most  artistic  glass  in  the  world,  which  is  available  to  our  churches 
and  to  those  who  seek  to  beautify  them  by  gifts  of  memorial  and  other  windows. 
Such  legislation  would  also  wipe  out  the  substantial  revenue  derived  from  the  duties 
on  stained-glass  windows  and  would  place  our  churches  and  the  donors  of  many 
splendid  works  of  art  at  the  mercy  of  the  domestic  manufacturer,  whose  way  to 
exorbitant  profits  would  be  made  easy.  We  respectfully  submit  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  policy  of  our  tariff  legislation  which  requires  that  the  cause  of  religion  should 
be  made  to  suffer  to  enrich  a  few  manufacturers. 

Upon  the  contrary,  we  urgently  insist  that  the  present  duty  on  stained-glass  windows 
should  be  reduced.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  Congress,  recognized  in  many  tariff 
acts,  to  favor  the  cause  of  religion  by  allowing  free  importation  of  articles  intended 
to  be  used  for  religious  purposes.  The  striking  out  of  all  provisions  for  free  entry  of 
stained-glass  windows  imported  for  presentation  to  churches  under  the  tariff  acts  of 
1890,  1897,  and  1909  was  a  pronounced  and  radical  exception  to  the  general  policy  of 
Congress.  The  present  tariff  has  imposed  a  severe  and  burdensome  tax  upon  churches 
and  upon  those  whose  religious  inclinations  have  prompted  them  to  make  gifts  of 
beautiful  devotional  works  of  art  to  churches. 

The  domestic  manufacturers  have  had  23  years  in  which  to  put  their  industry  on  its 
feet.  They  have  not  only  succeeded  in  putting  it  on  its  feet,  but  have  made  it  a  very 
strong  and  thriving  industry.  They  are  more  than  holding  their  own  against  foreign 
competition  and  ought  to  be  disposed  to  make  concessions  after  such  a  liberal  treat- 
ment over  so  long  a  period  of  time. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  the  industry  is  no  longer  in  its  infancy  and  that  the 
tune  has  come  when  it  is  entirely  proper  that  Congress  should  withdraw  from  it  some 
of  the  protection  it  has  been  enjoying.  This  would  be  in  accord  with  the  soundest 
economic  principles,  held  even  by  those  who  advocate  the  protective  policy. 

We  ask  your  committee  to  accept  with  caution  figures  that  may  be  given  by  domestic 
manufacturers  for  labor  in  various  countries  in  Europe.  Hitherto  these  figures  have 


908  TARIFF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  1O9— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

been  accompanied  by  no  statement  as  to  the  authority  on  which  they  are  given, 
and  we  are  satisfied  that  they  have  been  far  from  correct.  We  submit  that  hearsay 
evidence  on  this  question  of  wages  or  cost  of  production  should  not  be  received.  It 
should  always  be  borne  in  mind,  in  connection  with  these  statements  as  to  lower  wages 
paid  to  European  workmen,  that  the  American  manufacturer  requires  and  obtains 
from  his  workmen  nearly  twice  as  much  work  in  a  given  number  of  hours  as  can  be 
obtained  from  corresponding  workmen  in  a  European  establishment. 

That  the  figures  given  by  the  American  manufacturers  are  unreliable  can  be  shown 
by  the  example  already  cited  by  them  from  the  last  tariff  hearing  (ante,  p.  3).  It  was 
asserted  that  a  window  containing  165  square  feet  would  have  a  factory  cost  in  Ger- 
many of  $120.50  and  could  be  sold  for  export  in  Germany  at  $216.  Expressed  in 
German  currency,  this  is  a  factory  cost  of  approximately  3  marks  per  square  foot 
and  a  selling  price  of  5J  marks  per  square  foot. 

The  actual  facts  are  very  different.  The  books  of  Mayer  &  Co.,  of  Munich,  the 
largest  manufacturers  of  stained-glass  windows  in  Germany,  show  an  average  factory 
cost  upon  a  year's  business,  including  "Regie,"  or  administration  expenses,  of  8.58 
marks  per  square  foot  for  all  glass  made,  or  10.72  marks  per  square  foot  after  adding 
25  per  cent  profit  to  arrive  at  a  fair  selling  price.  The  authority  for  these  figures  is 
the  affidavit  of  a  sworn  accountant  who  examined  the  books  of  this  company,  printed 
as  an  appendix  to  this  brief.  The  original  of  this  affidavit  is  at  the  disposal  of  your 
committee  if  it  desires  it. 

The  schedule  of  values  now  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  appraising  this  glass  at 
the  port  of  New  York,  which  can  be  verified  by  the  appraiser  at  that  port,  is  as  follows: 

"One  single  figure,  18  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Group  of  two  figures,  20  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Group  of  three  figures,  22  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Group  of  four  figures  and  over,  23  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Landscape,  12  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Ornament,  8  marks  per  square  foot. 

"Busts,  14  marks  per  square  foot." 

While  the  above  values  adopted  by  the  appraising  officers  as  the  foreign  market 
value  of  this  glass  are  believed  to  be  much  too  high,  in  view  of  the  actual  conditions 
shown  by  the  books  of  Mayer  &  Co..  they  serve  to  emphasize  the  absurdity  of  the 
claims  made  by  the  American  manufacturer,  who  asserts  that  this  glass  can  be  turned 
out  in  Germany  for  3  marks  per  square  foot  and  sold  for  5J  marks  per  square  foot, 
and  makes  his  claim  for  protection  accordingly. 

Recurring  to  the  window  of  165  square  feet  chosen  as  an  example,  the  American 
manufacturer  tells  us  that  its  factory  cost  in  this  country  would  be  $257.  (Tariff  Hear- 
ings, 1908-9,  pp.  1233  to  1234.)  This  is  equivalent  to  6. 55  marks  per  square  foot.  Com- 
pare these  figures  with  Mayer  &  Co. 's  average  factory  cost  of  8.58  marks  per  square  foot. 
Where  do  we  find  any  basis  for  the  plea  that  the  American  manufacturer  needs  a  pro- 
tective duty  of  45  per  cent  to  compensate  for  the  difference  between  the  cost  of  }>ro- 
iucing  his  window  and  that  of  the  German  manufacturer? 

Hitherto  the  American  manufacturers  applying  for  protection  have  failed  to  furnish 
any  figures  as  to  the  increase  of  their  business  since  1890,  or  the  amount  of  their  profits, 
or,  if  they  are  incorporated,  the  dividends  they  pay  on  their  stock,  or  the  relation  their 
stock  issue  bears  to  the  actual  amount  of  money  invested  in  the  business,  etc. 
In  short,  as  to  all  the  facts  peculiarly  within  their  own  knowledge,  they  have  been 
reticent  to  the  last  degree,  whereas  as  to  those  of  which  they  can  have  no  actual  knowl- 
edge they  have  been  exceedingly  ready  to  talk. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  competition  between  foreign  and  domestic 
.stained  glass,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  present  dispute,  exists  only  as  to  stained  glass 
windows  imported  for  churches,  etc.  As  to  the  opalescent  and  ornamental  glass,  such 
as  is  used  in  private  houses,  public  buildings,  etc.,  the  domestic  manufacturer  now 
enjoys  a  monopoly,  and  the  foreign  houses  have  not  attempted  and  do  not  now  seek  to 
compete  with  him. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons  we  respectfully  urge  the  following  changes  in  the  existing 
law  as  found  in  paragraphs  109  and  716  of  the  tariff  act  of  1909: 

(1)  That  the  duty  on  stained  or  painted  glass  windows,  or  parts  thereof,  as  found  in 
paragraph  109,  be  reduced  from  45  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

(2)  That  the  word  "including"  be  substituted  for  the  word  "except,"  preceding 
flie  phrase,  "sluined  or  painted  window  glass  or  stained  or  painted  glass  windows," 
as  found  in  paragraph  710,  thus  restoring  the  privilege  of  free  entry  to  church  windows 


SCHEDULE   B-  909 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

as  it  stood  under  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894,  and  as  it  was  accorded  prior  to  the  tariff  act 
of  1890. 
Dated,  New  York,  January  6,  1913. 

CURIE,  SMITH  &  MAXWELL, 

Attorneys  for  Importers  of  Stained  Window  Glass  and 
Stained  Glass  Windows,  No.  32  Broadway,  New  York  City. 
THOMAS  M.  LANE, 

Of  Counsel. 

APPENDIX. 

(Translation.! 
Register  No.  673. 

To-day,  the  27th  day  of  February,  1912,  appeared  before  me,  Justizrat  Karl  Lens, 
royal  notary  at  Munich  XII,  in  my  office,  Mr.  Simbert  Sallinger,  known  to  me  per- 
sonally as  sworn  auditor  and  competent  judge  in  matters  of  bookkeeping,  residing  at 
12/IV  Barerstrasse,  Munich,  and  declared  his  intention  to  make  an  affidavit. 

I,  notary,  thereupon  called  expressly  Mr.  Sallinger 's  attention  to  the  legal  impor- 
tance of  an  affidavit  and  the  criminal  consequences  in  case  he  knowingly  or  carelessly 
made  a  false  statement  on  affidavit. 

Thereupon  Mr.  Sallinger  declared  with  his  request  of  having  his  statement  recorded 
the  following: 

Requested  by  the  firm  Mayer 'sche  Kgl.  Hofkunstanstalt  in  Munich  to  calculate 
upon  the  entries  in  their  books  the  market  value  of  one  square  foot  of  their  production 
in  stained  glass,  I  undertook  the  task  in  the  offices  of  the  said  firm  between  February 
21  and  February  24,  1912. 

Before  examining  the  books  I  inspected  attentively  the  studios  of  the  firm  already 
well  known  to  me,  and  after  examining  the  properly  kept  books  basing  my  calcula- 
tions upon  the  business  year  from  March  1,  1910.  to  February  28,  1911 — as  the  last 
year  balanced — have  arrived  at  the  following  results  and  affirm: 

That  in  the  period  mentioned  the  production  of  stained  glass  amounted  to  34,800 
square  feet,  that  the  cost  of  production  per  square  foot  was  8.586  marks,  to  which 
amount  added  25  per  cent  for  profit,  2.147  marks:  follows  that  the  market  value  per 
square  foot  is  10.733  marks. 

In  detail  the  books  show  the  following  itema 

Marks. 

For  making  cartoons 39, 767. 10 

For  material:  Marks. 

(a)  Glass ." 18,074.03 

(&)  Colors 3, 570.  55 

(c)  Lead  and  zinc 5,  379.  57 

(d)  Various 717. 17 

27,741.32 

67, 508. 42 

For  wages,  etc 199, 105. 95 

For  working  expenses 11,  741.  27 

For  Regie 20, 453.  65 

231, 300.  87 

298,  809.  29 


8.586 
2.147 


Total  per  square  foot - 10.  733 

The  above-mentioned  figures  have  been  arrived  at  with  the  utmost  exactness  and 
will  correspond  in  the  average  with  the  cost  of  production  of  other  producers  of  stained 
glass  in  Munich.  What  the  firm  pays  more  in  higher  wages  they  really  save,  as,  owing 
to  their  widespread  circle  of  customers  and  large  output,  the  cartoons,  the  production 
of  which  requires  great  outlay,  can  be  used  over  and  over  again.  Thus,  this  item 
amounts  to  only  1.13  marks  per  square  foot,  although  the  firm  employs  prominent 
artists. 

I  state  hereby  particularly  that  the  market  value  as  figured  above  is  based  upon 
the  total  production  of  stained  glass  by  the  firm  in  the  year  1910-11,  and  that  the  mar- 
ket value  for  the  stained  glass  supplied  to  the  New  York  house  would  figure  out 


910  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  109— STAINED  WINDOW  GLASS. 

much  less,  as  for  these  supplies  the  advantages  of  a  wholesale  production  are  most 
apparent. 

Now,  referring  to  the  custom  of  the  firm  to  charge  to  the  New  York  house  higher 
prices  than  calculated  above  and  declared  in  the  legalized  invoices  for  custom  pur- 
poses as  market  value,  the  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  inner  conditions,  to  wit:  In  the 
annual  balance  the  profit  for  the  New  York  house  is  figured  separately,  as  the  manager 
of  that  branch  draws  a  share  of  the  so-established  profit.  As  the  mother  house  in 
Munich  takes  a  certain  amount  of  the  profit  beforehand,  on  which  the  New  York 
house  gets  no  share,  the  New  York  house  has  to  accept  the  goods  at  a  higher  amount. 
This  is,  therefore,  as  already  mentioned,  a  purely  internal  and  book  "technical  matter, 
and  the  making  out  of  invoices  to  that  effect  could  just  as  well  have  been  omitted 
and  the  matter  arranged  at  the  annual  balance.  For  the  custom  declaration,  the 
above  figured  market  value  only  is  material  and  correct. 

I  confirm  by  affidavit  the  correctness  and  completeness  of  my  statement  given 
above. 

This  present  document,  of  which  a  copy  has  not  been  retained,  is  to  be  handed 
over  to  the  Mayer'sche  Kgl.  Hofkunstanstalt  against  payment  of  costs. 

Read  out  by  the  notary,  acknowledged  by  the  interested  parties,  and  signed  m.  p. 

[SEAL.]  SIMBERT  SALLINGER, 

Justizrat  Lem,  Royal  Notary. 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

State,  City,  and  County  of  New  York,  ss: 

I.  the  undersigned  notary  public  in  and  for  the  county  of  New  York,  familiar  with 
the  English  as  well  as  with  the  German  language,  do  hereby  certify  that  I  have  com- 
pared the  foregoing  translation  with  the  German  original  attached  hereto,  and  found 
that  it  is  a  correct  translation  of  the  German  original. 

New  York,  March  19,  1912. 

[SEAL.]  ROB.  SCHWARTZ, 

Notary  Public,  104,  for  New  York  County. 

MEMORIAL    OF    ORNAMENTAL    GLASS    MANUFACTURERS'  ASSO- 
CIATION. 

Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

House  of  Representat ires.  Washington.  D.  C. 

On  behalf  of  the  National  Ornamental  Glass  Manufacturers'  Association,  composed 
<•!'  glass  stainers  in  all  of  the  prominent  cities  of  the  United  States,  and  including 
from  75  to  80  per  cent  of  all  the  glass  of  this  character  manufactured  in  the  United 
States,  we  beg  to  submit  for  your  consideration,  certain  facts  patent  to  our  trade,  and 
which  have  a  distinct  bearing  on  the  rate  of  tariff  on  stained-glass  windows. 

(a)  The  cost  of  production  of  our  product  consists  mainly  of  the  item  of  labor,  in 
fact  it  is  variously  estimated  from  75  to  80  per  cent  of  the  entire  cost  of  production. 

(b)  Wages  in  Europe  are  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  what  corresponding  labor  is 
paid  for  in  this  country. 

Cc)  Wages  have,  in  the  last  decade,  advanced  about  25  per  cent,  and  at  that  time 
»iir  industry  was  protected  with  a  65  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty,  since  reduced  to  a 
-15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

I'd)  The  gross  product  of  our  industry  in  the  United  States  probablv  exceeds 
^7.000,000  annually,  requiring  an  investment  of  about  S2,500,  and  employing  about 
(l.OOO  workmen. 

We  therefore  ask  for  a  revision  of  the  tariff: 

First.  Based  on  a  specific  duty  for  $4  per  square  foot  on  all  stained-glass  windows 
or  parts  of  windows,  painted,  stained,  or  enameled  for  any  purpose  whatever. 

Second.  In  addition  thereto  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  10  per  cent. 

Our  reasons  for  asking  for  the  above  changes  in  the  tariff  is  called  for  by  the  facts 
that  the  German  and  Austrian  importers  undervalue  their  work,  and  even  go  to  the 
extent  of  entering  work  into  this  country  gratis  (re  St.  Mary's  G.  C.  Church,  N.  S. 
Pittsburgh,  by  the  Tyrolose  Co..  of  Jnsbruck),  therefore,  by  placing  the  duties,  as 
askdl  lor.  and  establishing  a  flat  rate  with  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  10  per  cent  added 
thereto,  there  should  be  no  further  inducements  to  undervaluations. 

Fourth.  We  would  also  recommend  the  elimination  of  all  conflicting  clauses,  which 
have  heretofore  allowed  stained  or  painted  glass  or  windows  being  brought  into  the 
country  under  pictorial  painting  on  glass  classification,  for  the  reasons  that  the  German 


SCHEDULE  B.  911 

PARAGRAPHS  111-112    MARBLE. 

and  Austrian  importers  are  continually  entering  glass  under  the  guise  of  pictorial 
paintings  on  glass  clause  with  the  view  of  evading  the  payments  of  the  duties,  as  at 
present  called  for,  trusting  to  the  chance  that  the  collector  at  the  port  of  entry  will 
pass  the  windows  through  under  this  clause  (entry  of  Boos  of  Germany  re  St.  George's 
C.  Church,  S.  S.  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  attempted  entry  as  pictorial  paintings  on  glass, 
December.  1912). 
We  particularly  refer  to  paragraph  No.  716  in  the  present  tariff  schedule. 

KARL  STEWARD, 

Chairman  Executive  Committee  N.  0.  G.  M.  Association. 

HENRY  HUNT, 

Secretary. 
.1  \\TARY  16,  1913. 

PARAGRAPH  110. 

Fusible  enamel,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem ;  opal  or  cylinder  glass 
tiles  or  tiling,  sixty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  111. 

Marble  and  onyx,  in  block,  rough  or  squared  only,  sixty-five  cents  per 
cubic  foot ;  marble  and  onyx,  sawed  or  dressed,  over  two  inches  in  thickness, 
one  dollar  per  cubic  foot;  slabs  or  paving  tiles  of  marble  or  onyx,  contain-  . 
ing  not  less  than  four  superficial  inches,  if  not  more  than  one  inch  in  thick- 
ness, eight  cents  per  superficial  foot;  if  more  4han  one  inch  and  not  more 
than  one  and  one-half  inches  in  thickness,  ten  cents  per  superficial  foot; 
if  more  than  one  and  one-half  inches  and  not  more  than  two  inches  in  thick- 
ness, twelve  and  one-half  cents  per  superficial  foot;  if  rubbed  in  whole  or  in 
part,  two  cents  per  superficial  foot  in  addition;  mosaic  cubes  of  marble  or 
onyx,  not  exceeding  two  cubic  inches  in  size,  if  loose,  one-fourth  of  one 
cent  per  pound  and  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  attached  to  paper  or 
other  material,  five  cents  per  superficial  foot  and  thirty-five  per  centum  ad 
valorem. 
See  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  481. 

PARAGRAPH  112. 

Marble,  breccia,  onyx,  alabaster,  and  jet,  wholly  or  partly  manufactured 
into  monuments,  benches,  vases,  and  other  articles,  or  of  which  these  sub- 
stances or  either  of  them  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  and  all 
articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  agate,  rock  crystal,  or  other 
semiprecious  stones,  except  such  as  are  cut  into  shapes  and  forms  fitting 
them  expressly  for  use  in  the  construction  of  jewelry,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  section,  fifty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 
For  marble,  etc.,  see  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce,  page  481. 

MARBLE. 

STATEMENT  OF  BENJAMIN  D.  TRAITEL,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
MARBLE  INDUSTRY  EMPLOYERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  NEW  YORK 
CITY. 

PARAGRAPH  111. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Traitel,  which  paragraph  do  you  wish  to 
refer  to  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Paragraph  111,  page  11.  providing  for  a  duty  of  65 
cents  per  cubic  foot  on  marble  in  block,  rough  or  squared.  Our 
appeal  to  you,  gentlemen,  is  that  this  duty  be  repealed  and  that  these 
rough  blocks  be  admitted  free.  It  is  raw  material,  and  we  are  appeal- 
ing to  you  on  the  raw  material  only. 

I  represent  42  nonquarrying  manufacturers,  makers  and  fabricators 
of  interior  marblework  exclusively.  They  do  not  do  exterior  work, 
and  do  not  operate  quarries,  operating  manufacturing  plants  only 
and  buying  from  the  quarries  or  the  representatives  of  the  quarries. 


912  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS  111-112— MARBLE. 

These  42  manufacturers  employ  25  per  cent  of  the  labor  engaged  in 
working  this  product  in  the  United  States  and  have  a  capital  invested 
of  about  $8,000,000. 

We  want  this  material  free  for  many  reasons ;  first,  because  we  have 
no  possible  way  of  competing  with  the  quarrying  manufacturer.  Per- 
haps I  had  better  explain  what  is  meant  by  that.  The  quarrying 
manufacturer  is  one  who  owns  and  operates  or  operates  a  quarry, 
taking  the  marble  from  the  quarry,  milling  it,  sawing  it,  and  fabricat- 
ing it  to  the  last  degree  for  his  requirements.  The  nonquarrying 
manufacturer  does  the  manufacturing  only  from  the  rough  blocks, 
which  he  must  purchase  from  quarrymen.  It  has  often  occurred  that 
in  competing  for  the  ulterior  work  of  such  a  building  as  this,  where 
the  Government  very  naturally  has  specified  domestic  material,  that 
the  prices  made  by  the  quarrying  manufacturer  for  the  rough 
material  only  to  the  nonquarrying  manufacturer  have  almost  equaled 
the  price  made  to  the  Government  for  the  work  completely  finished 
and  installed.  Now,  if  that  be  so,  and  it  is  so,  we  have  no  chance 
with  the  domestic  material,  and  our  only  chance  to  compete  with 
such  a  monopolistic  condition,  for  it  is  such,  is  by  having  the  raw  ma- 
terials from  abroad  come  in  free.  Unlike  the  cabinetworker  and  the 
woodworker,  we  have  to  fabricate  our  work  from  the  rough  block. 
They  can  buy  their  material  sawed  to  sizes,  but  we  have  to  do  it  all. 
We  want  to  be  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  quarrying 
manufacturer. 

What  has  this  duty  on  rougli  marble  yielded  to  the  United  States 
in  all  these  years?  Taking  the  Government  statistics,  the  average 
annual  imports  from  1906  down  to  1912,  exclusive  of  cost  at  the  port 
of  entry — I  am  wrong — the  cost  at  the  port  of  shipment,  $951,342. 
This  is  based  on  the  average  import  in  those  years,  the  average  being 
623,500  cubic  feet  of  marble,  at  an  average  cost  per  cubic  foot  of 
$1.54^.  The  specific  duty  on  this  is  65  cents,  making  an  ad  valorem 
of  between  42  and  43  per  cent,  which  has  yielded  to  the  Government 
in  all  those  years  a  total  revenue  of  $2,000,796.88. 

Mr.  PALMER.  In  how  many  years  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Seven  years. 

We  maintain,  gentlemen,  that  marble,  once  classed  as  a  luxury, 
and  perhaps  properly  so,  is  no  longer  such,  in  the  light  of  the  advance- 
ment in  building  construction  and  the  demand  and  necessity  for 
better  sanitary  conditions,  for  as  near  as  possible  fireproof  conditions, 
because  noncombustible  and  noninflammable  materials  must  super- 
sede and  are  superseding  combustible  and  inflammable  materials. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  revenue  did  it  yield  last  year? 

Mr.  KITCHIX.  $402,677. 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  You  will  appreciate,  from  the  nature  of  the  building 
you  are  in,  that  you  are  housed  in  as  nearly  a  fireproof  structure  as 
it  was  possible  for  the  architect  to  design.  So  it  is  to-day,  within 
certain  limitations,  with  regard  to  housing  business  people,  housing 
people  in  tenements,  and  people  in  charitable  institutions.  The 
demand  to-day  is  that  the  material  in  the  construction  of  these  build- 
ings must  be  as  nearly  fireproof  as  possible.  And  so  an  industry  has 
grown  up  in  interior  marblework.  Where  heretofore  you  had  win- 


SCHEDULE  B.  913 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

dow  and  door  trims  of  wood,  to-day  you  have  them  of  marble,  or 
steel,  or  wood  drawn  over  with  steel.  Where  you  had  partitions  of 
wood  in  toilets  and  lavatories,  you  have  them  to-day  of  marble;  and 
so  on  throughout  the  whole  construction  of  buildings,  so  that  this 
material  is  no  longer  a  luxury,  as  has  been  heretofore  claimed,  but 
is  a  necessity. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Is  it  not  true  that  marble  is  used  by  the  well-to-do 
people  and  not  by  the  classes  of  people  who  predominate  in  our 
population  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  No.  Let  me  answer  you  in  this  way:  The  well- 
to-do,  without  question,  use  a  great  deal  of  marble  for  decorative 
purposes.  There  is  no  question  about  that,  and  they  use  the  richest 
of  marble.  But  when  we  speak  of  marble,  we  are  not  speaking  of 
decorative  marble,  we  are  speaking  of  the  marble  of  commerce,  the 
white  marble,  the  blue  and  the  gray  marble,  and  the  marbles  that 
are  dense  in  quality,  resisting  absorption 

Mr.  PALMER  (interposing) .  You  would  not  call  it  one  of  the  neces- 
sities of  life  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  No;  I  would  not  call  it  a  necessity  of  life,  but  I  would 
call  it  a  necessity  for  comfort  and  for  health.  It  must  be  either  mar- 
ble or  slate  or  soapstone.  Marble  is  more  beautiful  and  does  not  cost 
so  awfully  much  more  than  clear  black  slate.  Marble  is,  therefore, 
utilitarian  as  well  as  beautiful. 

Mr.  JAMES.  What  percentage  of  the  people  who  work  for  your  con- 
cern own  their  own  homes  and  use  this  character  of  marble  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  A  very  large  percentage.  I  could  not  give  it  in  exact 
numbers,  but  I  can  answer  it  in  this  way:  For  years  our  marble  cut- 
ters have  received  $5  a  day  for  an  eight-hour  day;  the  polishers  have 
received  $4  for  an  eight-hour  day;  the  sawyers  and  rubbers,  $4.25; 
and  the  laborers,  S3.  These  wages,  in  the  main,  have  just  been 
increased  10  per  cent. 

I  am  glad  you  asked  that  question,  for  it  brings  to  my  mind  this  fact: 
That  the  manufacturers  who  are  nonquarrymen  pay  the  highest  wages 
and  work  an  8-hour  day ;  they  have  their  factories  in  cities  where  land 
and  buildings  are  expensive  and  where  fcaxes  are  higher,  while  the 
manufacturing  quarrymen,  who  will  appeal  to  you  to  reduce  the  duty, 
have  their  plants  and  their  quarries  out  in  the  outlying  districts  or 
away  out  in  the  country;  they  keep  wages  down  to  the  lowest  point 
and  they  work  the  10-hour  day. 

Mr.  JAMES.  That  was  not  my  question.  I  asked  you  what  per  cent 
of  the  laboring  men  who  worked  for  your  concern  own  their  own  homes 
and  use  this  character  of  marble  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Well,  I  should  say  the  largest  percentage  of  the  men 
who  work  for  us  rent  their  homes  and  live  in  tenements  or  apartments. 
In  the  tenements  that  go  above  six  stories  in  height,  in  our  location — 
in  the  metropolitan  district  of  New  York — they  must  use  fireproof 
material.  If  they  are  six  stories  or  lower,  they  can  use  other  material. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So  they  rent  their  homes,  then  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Yes,  sir;  a  great  mam7  of  them  rent  their  homes. 

Mr.  JAMES.  So,  of  course,  this  marble  is  not  a  necessity  to  them  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  No. 

78959°— VOL  1—13 58 


914  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

Mr.  JAMES.  They  need  a  home  worse  than  anything  else. 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Well,  we  all  do  that. 

Mr.  JAMES.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  is  true. 

Mr.  DIXON.  If  you  put  rough  marble  on  the  free  list,  what  would 
you  do  with  the.  marble  that  had  been  advanced  in  manufacture  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  If  rough  marble  is  on  the  free  list,  it  would  make  the 
present  duty  on  manufactured  marble  that  much  higher.  The  wages 
abroad  in  the  manufacturing  marble  industry  are  so  far  below  the 
wages  in  this  country,  that  you  could  not  for  one  moment  consider 
the  removal  of  duty  from  manufactured  marble.  Where  we  pay  $5  a 
day  they  pay  5  francs. 

Mr.  DIXON.  You  would  leave  them  at  the  same  rate  they  are  at 
the  present  tune  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  I  would,  at  least.  But  I  am  not  raising  an  issue  on 
that,  particularly.  I  am  satisfied  to  have  that  remain  where  it  is. 
Manufactured  marble  can  be  brought  to  this  country  to-day,  plus  the 
present  duty,  at  far  below  the  price  at  which  we  can  produce  it  here 
even  with  the  duty  off  the  block.  Keep  that  in  mind,  please. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  What  part  of  your  manufactured  product  is  the 
rough  marble? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  All  of  our  manufactured  product  is  from  the  rough 
marble. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  No;  I  mean  in  dollars  and  cents.  When  you  turn 
out,  say,  a  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  manufactured  product,  how 
much  is  represented  by  the  rough  marble? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  I  should  say,  taking  what  we  call  the  everyday  work 
and  the  ornamental  work  together,  about  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  If  they  gave  you  free  marble  and  took  off  this  tariff 
of  about  41  or  42  per  cent,  how  much  lower  do  you  think  we  ought 
to  reduce  the  tariff  on  your  finished  product  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  Personally,  I  do  not  think  it  should  be  reduced. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  So  you  would  get  the  benefit  of  this  41  per  cent 
reduction  ? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  We  would  get  it  in  the  raw  material  only. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  And  the  consumer  who  buys  this  article — which  you 
call  an  article  of  necessity — would  not  get  the  benefit  of  the  reduction. 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  When  I  tell  you  that  there  are  42  manufacturers  in 
our  association  in  New  York  and  a  very  few  outside,  you  can  readily 
appreciate  that  the  competition  is  pretty  keen.  Each  takes  advan- 
tage of  the  best  he  gets  and  the  best  facilities  for  manufacturing.  If 
you  would  get  a  half  a  dozen  estimates  for  marblework  on  a  particular 
building  to-day,  you  would  find  that  they  would  vary  very  materially 
in  price. 

Mr.  KITCHIN.  Are  *ou  an  exporter  of  any  finished  marble? 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  No;  nothing  to  speak  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  time  of  the  witness  has  expired. 

Mr.  TRAITEL.  I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 


SCHEDULE   B.  915 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

BRIEF  OF  MR.  BENJ.  D.  TRAITEL — TARIFF  ON  MARBLE— RE  MARBLE,  IN  BLOCK, 

ROUGH  OR  SQUARED. 

To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  following  is  respectfully  presented  on  behalf  of  members  of  the 
Marble  Industry  Employers'  Association  of  New  York  City,  engaged  exclusively  in 
the  manufacturing  and  finishing  of  interior  marblework,  mainly  from  the  rough  blocks, 
and  not  producers  of  marble,  and  who  employ  about  25  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of 
mechanics  engaged  in  this  branch  of  the  building  industry  in  the  United  States  and 
whose  investment  in  plant,  stock,  and  machinery  exceeds  $8,000,000  in  New  York 
City. 

MARBLE   NOT   A   LUXURY,    BUT   A   NECESSITY. 

In  memorials  submitted  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  the  years  1893,  1897, 
and  1908,  the  basis  of  the  arguments  of  those  preparing  and  directly  responsible  for 
such  memorials  for  the  maintaining  or  the  increasing  of  the  tariff  on  marble  was  upon 
the  plea  that  marble  was  a  luxury  and  that  the  raw  material,  or  block  marble,  was 
therefore  one  of  the  articles  upon  which  the  Government  could  properly  place  an  import 
duty. 

Upon  investigation  it  is  found  that  the  reverse  of  such  arguments  is  true  and  that 
instead  of  marble  being  classed  as  a  luxury  it  is  found,  in  the  light  of  the  advancement 
made  in  fireproof  construction,  that  non combustible  and  noninflammable  material 
has  become  a  necessity  for  interior  as  well  as  for  exteriors  of  fireproof  buildings. 

In  the  larger  cities  of  the  country  the  so-called  fire  zone  is  becoming  more  and  more 
enlarged  by  legislation,  and  in  consequence  thereof  wood  and  other  combustible 
materials  are  being  superseded  by  marble  and  other  noncombustible  materials  in 
tenement  houses,  apartment  houses,  mercantile  buildings,  institutions,  Government 
buildings,  and  all  permanent  buildings  of  this  country. 

In  addition  to  this  use  building  codes  generally  provide  for  marble  for  sanitary 
purposes. 

Seventy  per  cent  of  the  quantity  of  marble  installed  in  the  interior  of  buildings  in 
this  country  is  used  for  floor  tiling  in  vestibules,  corridors,  public  spaces,  and  toilets, 
treads  and  platforms  of  stairs,  book-stack  floors  of  public  libraries,  water-closet  par- 
titions, backs,  and  floor  safe?,  urinal  partitions,  backs,  and  floor  slabs,  door  saddles, 
sanitary  base,  wall  linings,  plinth  blocks,  door  and  window  trim,  radiator  tops,  window 
sills,  switchboards,  laboratory  tops  and  floor  slabs,  table  tops,  counter  tops,  etc.,  and 
none  of  this  work  can  be  classed  under  the  heading  of  "luxury."  Block  or  rough 
marble  is  as  necessary  to  the  manufacturers  of  interior  marble  as  timber  is  to  the 
manufacturing  woodworker,  and  the  available  supply  in  this  country  of  marble  of  a 
uniform  texture,  grade,  or  color  suitable  for  interior  use  is  limited.  The  production 
of  this  kind  of  material  in  this  country  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  developments  and 
requirements  of  the  building  industry,  and  the  manufacturers  of  interior  marblework 
are  at  greater  disadvantage  for  stock  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  architects,  owners, 
and  building  public  each  year. 

Therefore,  to  meet  these  constantly  increasing  requirements,  we  largely  depend  on 
the  foreign  supply  of  the  raw  material. 

As  the  cost  of  housing  the  people  of  this  country,  whether  in  their  homes,  work- 
shops, educational  and  eleemosynary  institutions,  enters  as  one  of  the  large  factors 
in  the  cost  of  living,  we  should  have  this  raw  product  come  in  free. 

The  duty,  as  it  stands  to-day  on  the  cheaper  marbles  coming  from  abroad,  is  dis- 
proportionate and  tends  only  to  enable  the  domestic  quarryman  to  maintain  his  prices 
at  the  highest  point  and  with  an  abnormal  profit. 

The  domestic  quarrymen  are  manufacturers,  using  not  only  their  own  product  from 
their  quarries  in  competition  with  the  nonquarrying  manufacturers,  but  also  buying 
imported  marble  blocks  and  manufacturing  and  installing  them  in  consequence  of 
the  shortage  of  domestic  rough  blocks. 

It  is  a  well-established  fact  that  the  nonquarrying  manufacturers  pay  the  highest 
wages,  working  the  8-hour  day,  having  their  plants  in  the  cities,  therefore  paying 
more  for  land  and  buildings  and  paying  higher  taxes  than  the  quarry  owners,  where 
wages  are  kept  at  the  lowest  point  and  where  they  work  not  less  than  the  10-hour  day. 

In  competition,  where  using  the  product  of  their  own  quarries,  they  figure  on  this 
product  at  first-cost  basis  to  themselves. 


916  TABIFP   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   111-112— MARBLE. 

Lower  wages  per  day  and  longer  hours  of  work,  with  lower  taxes  (the  quarries  being 
in  the  country),  makes  competition  on  the  part  of  the  nonquarrying  manufacturers 
prohibitive  and  thus  (in  the  domestic  material,  at  least)  creates  a  monopoly. 

If  the  foreign  material  (blocks,  rough  or  squared)  were  admitted  free,  the  non- 
quarrying  manufacturer  would  be  placed  in  a  more  equal  position,  the  monopoly 
eradicated,  the  cost  of  tht  finished  product  reduced,  and  one  step  forward  would  be 
effected  in  the  reduction  ot  the  cost  of  living. 

We  again  respectfully  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  following  conditions  of 
our  trade,  viz: 

First.  Some  of  the  largest  quarry  owners  and  producers  of  marble  in  this  country 
are  also  manufacturers,  and  the  nonquarrying  manufacturers  can  not  compete  with 
them  in  the  manufacture  of  their  own  product. 

Second.  The  specifying  of  their  own  product  in  part  gives  control  to  the  quarry 
owners  and  makes  for  unequal  competition  and  for  monopoly. 

Third.  The  same  quarry  manufacturers  contract  to  furnish  foreign  marble  in  com- 
bination with  their  own  product  and  are  to-day  large  purchasers  of  foreign  marble, 
establishing  the  shortage  of  the  domestic  supply. 

Fourth.  One  of  the  largest  producers  of  marble  in  this  country,  in  a  signed  statement 
before  your  committee  about  December,  1908,  stated,  viz: 

"During  the  year  1907  the  average  price  realized  by  this  company  for  all  of  its 
marble  actually  sold,  taking  all  grades  quarried,  was  96  cents  per  cubic  foot  in  the 
block  at  the  quarry." 

A  recent  ''price  li&t  of  marble  for  building  work"  (see  Exhibit  A,  attached),  issued 
to  the  manufacturers  by  this  same  company,  shows  the  average  selling  price  of  the  39 
grades  of  their  quarry  products  to  the  trade,  sawed,  to  be  about  $4  per  cubic  foot  at 
quarry.  Deducting  sawing  by  water  power  at  50  cents  a  cubic  foot  would  show  an 
increase  of  about  250  per  cent  over  the  statement  quoted  before  your  committee  in 
1908.  This  is  made  possible  by  the  present  duty. 

The  same  producer  does  not  sell  its  marble  in  blocks  to  the  manufacturing  trade. 

Fifth.  In  a  similar  signed  statement  by  the  producers  of  Tennessee  marble  before 
your  committee  about  December,  1908,  they  stated:  "The  selling  price  of  blocks  so 
produced,  taking  the  average  of  the  different  grades  produced,  is  now  about  $1  per 
cubic  foot  f.  o.  b.  cars." 

Although  the  average  price  the  nonquarrying  manufacturers  are  now  paying  for  the 
same  material  is  from  50  to  75  per  cent  higher,  the  character  and  color  of  Tennessee 
marble  is  peculiar  to  its  locality  and  it  has  no  foreign  competition  when  this  class  of 
material  is  desired. 

We,  therefore,  in  the  interest  and  for  the  protection  of  a  young  and  growing  industry 
respectfully  petition  your  honorable  committee  that  the  present  import  duty  on  marble 
"in  block,  rough  or  squared,"  be  removed,  and  that  Marble  "in  block,  rough  or 
squared  "  (under  the  present  classification  of  marble,  onyx,  stone,  and  manufactures  of ) 
be  admitted  free. 

Signed  by  the  manufacturing  members  of  the  Marble  Industry  Employers  Associa- 
tion of  the  City  of  New  York. 


SCHEDULE  B. 


917 


PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 


American  Marble  Mosaic  Co.,  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 

Batterson  &  Eisele,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

Bierach  &  Co..  Borough  of  Bronx,  N.  Y. 

William  Bradley  &  Son,  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 

D.  Bravin  Tile  &  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Manhattan,  N.  Y. 

William  Buess,  Borough  of  Manhattan, 
N.  Y. 

Brooklyn  Steam  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Borgia  Bros.  Co.,  Borough  of  Queens,  N.  Y. 

Cork  &  Zicha  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of  Man- 
hattan, N.  Y. 

S.  Cascio  Marble  Works,  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Cerussi  Marble  Works,  Borough  of  Bronx, 
N.  Y. 

J.  Cullo  &  Bro.,  Borough  of  Manhattan, 
N.  Y. 

De  Francisci  Bros.  Co.,  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 

Ellin,  Kitson  &  Co.,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

S.  C.  Poletto  Bros.  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

B.  F.  Reilly,  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

P.  M.  &  W.  Schlichter,  Borough  of  Man- 
hattan;  N.  Y. 

J.  H.  Shipway  &  Bro.,  Borough  of  Bronx, 
N.  Y. 

Frank  Scolaro,  Borough  of  Bronx,  N.  Y. 

J.  Sciacca,  Borough  of  Manhattan,  N.  Y. 

Peter  Theis's  Sons,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

The  Traitel  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 


Friedman  Marble  &  Slate  Works,  Bor- 
ough of  Manhattan,  N.  Y. 

C.  M.  Gray  Marble  &  Slate  Co.,  Borough 
of  Queens,  N.  Y. 

Hajek  Bros.  &  Co.,  Borough  of  Bronx, 
N.  Y. 

Ital-American  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y 

A.  Klaber  &  Son,  Borough  of  Queens, 
N.  Y. 

Kemlein  &  Leahy  (Inc.),  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 

Jacob  M.  Leonhardt,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

Maxwell  &  Dempsey  (Inc.),  Borough  of 
Manhattan,  N.  Y. 

Manhattan  Marble  &  Slate  Works,  Bor- 
ough of  Manhattan,  N.  Y. 

The  McGowan  &  Connolly  Co.,  Borough 
of  Bronx,  N.  Y. 

McGratty  &  Sons,  Borough  of  Brooklyn, 
N.  Y. 

D.  H.  McLaury  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Bronx,  N.  Y. 

Alexander  Pelli  &  Co.,  Borough  of  Man- 
hattan, N.  Y. 

Tozzini  &  Co.,  Borough  of  Bronx,  N.  Y. 

Voska,  Foelsch  &  Sidlo  (Inc.),  Borough  of 
Queens,  N.  Y. 

Yorkville  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

George  Brown  &  Co.,  Borough  of  Manhat- 
tan, N.  Y. 

East  New  York  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Atlantic  Marble  Co.,  Borough  of  Brook- 
lyn, N.  Y. 

South  Brooklyn  Marble  &  Tile  Co.,  Bor- 
ough of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 


BENJ.  D.  TRAITEL,  President. 

EDWARD  J.  MCGRATTY,  Chairman  Executive  Committee. 

WILLIAM  K.  FERTIG,  Secretary, 


918  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

EXHIBIT  A. 
PRICE  LIST  OF  MARBLE  FOR  BUILDING  WORK,  VERMONT  MARBLE  Co. 

[Exhibit  A  of  the  manufacturing  members  of  the  Marble  Industry  Employers'  Association  of  New  York 
and  attached  to  petition  dated  Jan.  8, 1913,  and  marked  "Original."] 

Price  list  of  Vermont  marble  for  exterior,  interior,  decorative,  electrical,  and  similar  classes 

of  work,  November,  1911. 

[All  prices  are  at  mills  in  Vermont.] 


f  : 

In  slabs  from  saw,  full  size  of  block, 
per  square  foot. 

Cubic, 
notS.R., 
not 
boxed. 

Jand 
Jinch. 

1  inch. 

l|and 
1J  inches. 

1J  inches. 

Light  cloud  

$0.30 
.37 
.45 

.50 
.70 
.90 
1.20 
.25 
.25 
.30 
.40 
.60 
.50 
.32 
.85 
.35 
.30 
.25 
.34 
.40 
.20 
.27 
.32 
.35 
.35 
.40 
.60 
.30 
.25 
.30 
.23 
.30 
34 

$0.33 
.40 
.50 
.58 
.78 
1.00 
1.35 
.28 
.28 
.33 
.43 
.70 
.58 
.35 
1.00 
.40 
.33 
.28 
.37 
.45 
.23 
.30 
.35 
.40 
.40 
.43 
.70 
.33 
.28 
.33 
.25 
.33 
.37 
.22 
.22 
.35 
.24 
.24 

.18 

$0.40 
.50 
.58 
.68 
.85 
1.15 
1.55 
.35 
.35 
.40 
.53 
.80 
.68 
.42 
1.15 
.48 
.40 
.35 
.44 
.50 
.28 
.37 
.45 
.48 
.48 
.53 
.80 
.40 
.35 
.40 
.32 
.40 
.44 
.25 
.25 
.45 
.27 
.27 

.20 

$0.45 
.62 
.70 
.80 
1.00 
1.40 
1.80 
.42 
.42 
.45 
.65 
.95 
.80 
.50 
1.35 
.55 
.45 
.42 
.50 
.60 
.38 
.45 
.55 
.55 
.55 
.70 
.95 
.45 
.42 
.45 
.40 
.45 
.50 
.32 
.32 
.55 
.34 
.34 

.26 

$3.00 
3.75 
4.75 
5.25 
7.00 
9.00 
12.00 
2.50 
2.50 
3.00 
4.00 
7.25 
6.00 
3.25 
9.00 
3.50 
3.00 
2.50 
3.25 
3.00 
2.00 
3.00 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
4.50 
7.25 
3.00 
2.50 
3.00 
2.50 
3.00 
3.25 
2.50 
2.50 
3.50 
2.25 
2.25 

1.75 

Best  light  cloud  

Light  Rutland  Italian..                        .           

Second  statuary  

Extra  white  Rutland 

No.  1  Rutland  

Statuary  Rutland  

Olivo.                                                                     .  .  . 

Verdoso  

Brocadillo  

Listavena  .      .         

Pink  Listavena.  .  . 

Rubio  P 

Rubio  G 

American  Pavonazzo 

Westland  light  Cippolino 

Pittsford  Vallev  W  

Pittsford  Vallev  X 

Riverside  W 

Royal  antique  

Standard  blue  

Dove  blue  ... 

Electric  blue  

Veined  blue        ... 

Extra  dark  blue     .... 

Ruvaro 

Pittsford  Italian  V\"                         .                           .   . 

Pittsford  Italian  X 

Avenatto.                      .                      .                    .   .   . 

Marine  Veno^o      

Extra  select  P  I 

Pink  Lcpanto            

.20 
.20 
32 

Riverside  floor  and  tread  stock 

.22 
22 

.16 

Pittsford  Italian  floor  and  tread  stock  

Florence  (including  P.  V.  dove  shade)  floor  and 
tread  stock       

Slabs  0.2  and  under  in  thickness,  other  than  full  size  of  block,  extra  20  per  cent. 
Extra  for  matched  veining  of  Listaveua,  pink  Listavena,  Avenatto,  and  Venoso. 


SCHEDULE   B.  919 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 
SPECIALS. 

Strips,  pieces,  etc.,  2  inches  or  over  in  thickness  and  less  than  2.6  wide,  ordered 

7  long  and  under  11,  extra  per  cubic  foot $0.  50 

If  ordered  11  long,  extra  per  cubic  foot 75 

For  every  additional  foot  in  length,  extra  per  cubic  foot 25 

Pieces  less  than  1.6  wide  and  less  than  2  inches  in  thickness,  ordered  7  long, 

under  10,  extra  per  superficial  foot 04 

If  ordered  10  long,  extra  per  superficial  foot 08 

For  every  additional  foot  in  length,  extra  per  superficial  foot 04 

Slabs  2.6  or  over  wide,  ordered  9  long  or  4.6  wide,  2  inches  or  over  in  thickness, 
and  for  every  additional  foot  in  length  and  for  every  additional  6  inches  in 

width,  extra  per  cubic  foot 25 

Slabs  1.6  or  over  wide,  ordered  9  long  or  4.6  wide,  under  2  inches  in  thickness, 
and  for  every  additional  foot  in  length  or  for  every  additional  6  inches  in 

width,  extra  per  superficial  foot 04 

Slabs  2  inches  and  under  in  thickness,  other  than  full  size  of  block,  extra  20 

per  cent. 
Sawing  edges  of  slabs  1,  1J,  and  1£  inches  thick,  per  superficial  foot  of  slab. .       .  03 

Sawing  edges  of  slabs  2,  3,  and  4  inches  thick,  per  cubic  foot  of  slab 30 

Sawing  ends  of  slabs  the  same  as  for  edges. 

CRATING. 

Cubic  stock  4  inches  and  over,  per  cubic  foot 40 

Slabs  2  and  3  inches,  per  superficial  foot 10 

Slabs  1,  1J,  and  1^  inches,  singly,  per  superficial  foot 08 

Slabs  1,  1J,  and  1£  inches,  two  or  more  together,  per  superficial  foot 05 

No  marble  will  be  crated  unless  so  ordered. 

COMPUTATION    OF   QUANTITIES. 

[In  figuring  all  charges  a  half  inch  or  any  fraction  in  excess  thereof  will  be  treated  as  a  whole  inch.  This 
does  not  apply  to  the  thickness  of  slabs  less  than  2  inches.] 

TILE. 

Usual  thickness  varying  from  O.OJ  to  0.1  not  crated,  per  superficial  foot. 

Per  su- 
perficial 

Riverside,  Pittaford  Valley,  and  Pitteford  Italian:  foot- 

Extra  white..  .I  f$0.  40 

lo.6  x  0.6,  0.8  x  0.8,  0.10  x  0.10,  1.0  x  1.0,  1.4  x  0.8,  1.8  x  I     '  ™ 

>    01020x10  1     -28 

Variegated....      <*.JI>,  ^.U  x  I.U.  22 

Florence }  [    .20 

Isle  La  Motte 28 

Blue 28 

Dots  0.5  square  and  under,  each 08 

Crating  tile,  per  superficial  foot : 03 

All  other  sizes  at  special  prices. 

Diagonal  half  and  quarter  tile  will  be  charged  as  whole  square  tile. 

For  tile  1}  inches  thick,  add  30  per  cent  to  above  prices. 

Special  prices  on  all  tile  ordered  of  uniform  thickness. 

Cornered  tile  of  regular  sizes  for  dots  not  larger  than  0.3;  extra  for  each  corner  cut, 
I0.01J. 

Cornered  tile  of  regular  sizes  for  dots  larger  than  0.3  and  not  larger  than  0.6,  extra 
for  each  corner  cut,  $0.03. 

Border. — Ordinary  widths,  0.6  or  over,  if  ordered  with  tile,  same  price  as  tile. 

Border,  ordinary  widths,  0.6  or  over,  if  ordered  without  tile,  20  per  cent  higher  than 
tile  1.0  square. 

Border  under  0.6  in  width  will  be  charged  as  0.6  wide. 

Crating  border,  if  ordered  without  tile,  per  superficial  foot,  |0.05. 


920  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 
TERMS. 

Two  per  cent  discount  for  cash  within  30  days  from  date  of  invoice,  or  payment 
in  full  after  60  days  from  date  of  invoice. 

A  discount  of  5  per  cent  will  be  given  on  carload  lots  of  sawed  marble  of  30,000 
pounds  or  more  in  one  order. 

Special  and  net  prices  are  not  subject  to  carload  discount. 

All  claims  for  errors  in  measurements  or  for  unsoundness  must  be  made  within  20 
days  from  receipt  of  marble,  and  no  charge  for  work  on  defective  marble  will  be 
allowed. 

All  marble  will  be  carefully  loaded  on  the  cars  free  of  charge  and  shipped  the  day 
the  bill  is  dated,  which  is  a  delivery  to  the  purchaser.  The  railroad  company's  re- 
ceipt shall  be  sufficient  evidence  of  such  delivery. 

Unless  otherwise  directed  all  marble  will  be  shipped  by  the  cheapest  route,  "owner's 
risk  released,"  and  subject  to  the  official  freight  classification. 

MARBLE  INDUSTRY  EMPLOYERS'  ASSOCIATION, 

New  York,  January  16,  191S. 
To  the  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  manufacturing  members  of  the  Marble  Industry  Employers' 
Association  of  New  York  City  desire  to  supplement  their  brief  filed  at  a  hearing 
before  your  committee  on  January  8,  1913,  as  follows: 

First.  We  believe  the  request  of  the  importers  for  the  maintaining  of  a  duty  on 
rough  marble  (in  blocks,  rough  or  squared)  makes  for  control  and  monopoly,  and  also 
to  make  it  as  troublesome  as  possible  for  manufacturers  to  import  direct,  and  to  dis- 
courage anyone  from  entering  the  importing  business  because  of  the  greater  capital 
required  where  duty  is  to  be  paid  than  if  there  were  no  duty. 

Second.  We  indorse,  excepting  as  to  the  recommendations  for  the  maintenance  of 
any  duty  on  marble  blocks,  all  the  statements  made  under  the  heading  of  "Marble," 
in  a  memorial  presented  by  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce  before  your  committee 
and  printed  in  the  hearing  under  date  of  January  9,  1913.  (Print  4,  page  741.) 

Third.  We  beg  to  file  the  following  additional  signatures  received  from  those 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  marble  for  interior  use,  approving  the  recommendations 
in  our  petition  of  January  8,  1913,  entitled  Tariff  on  Marble:  Peoria  Stone  &  Marble 
Works,  Peoria,  111.;  N.  0.  Nelson  Marble  Co.,  Edwardsville,  111.;  The  Puffer  Manu- 
facturing Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Jacoby  &  Sons  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  S.  Klaber  &  Co., 
New  York,  N.  Y.;  Voska-Bremer  Marble  Co.,  Kansas  City,  Mo.;  Allen  &  Haworth, 
Cleveland,  Ohio;  The  Liquid  Carbonic  Co.,  Chicago,  111.;  Standard  Marble  Works, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio;  American  Soda  Fountain  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  Flavin  Marble  Mill, 
Chicago,  111.;  Davis  Marble  Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  The  Bowker  Torrey  Co.,  Boston, 
Mass.;  Feeney  &  DeVanny  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.;  The  Eckhardt  Monumental  Co., 
Toledo,  Ohio;  The  Johnson  Marble  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.;  H.  Marquardt  Marble  & 
Granite  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  John  M.  Gessler's  Sons,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  Northwestern 
Marble  &  Tile  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.;  The  Buckeye  Marble  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Trusting  this  communication  will  receive  favorable  consideration,  I  beg  to  remain, 
Respectfully, 

WM.  K.  FERTIG,  Secretary. 

STATEMENT    OF    JOHN    S.    SEWALL,    REPRESENTING    THE 
ALABAMA  MARBLE  CO. 

Mr.  SEWALL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  Ala- 
bama Marble  Co.  as  its  general  manager.  I  am  authorized  also  to 
speak  for  other  American  producers  whose  names  are  signed  to  a 
brief  statement,  which  we  have  submitted  to  the  committee  in  printed 
form.  In  this  statement  we  have  set  forth  facts  which  we  believe 
justify  the  maintenance  of  the  present  tariff  on  marble  in  all  of  its 
forms,  regardless  of  the  point  of  view  from  which  we  consider  it. 

We  desire  further  to  state  the  following  facts: 

The  total  investment  of  the  companies  whose  names  are  signed  to 
the  printed  statement  is  not  less  than  825,000,000.  The  develop- 
ment of  a  marble  deposit  to  a  point  of  profitable  production  is  the 


SCHEDULE  B.  921 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

work  of  almost  a  lifetime  and  calls  for  the  expenditure  of  enormous 
sums  of  money.  Very  few  of  the  American  producing  companies 
are  yet  on  a  dividend  basis,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that,  taken  as  a  whole, 
their  annual  net  earnings  do  not  average  as  much  as  6  per  cent  on 
the  actual  investment.  In  making  that  estimate  the  interest  on 
capital  is  not  reckoned  as  an  item  of  cost.  Most  of  them  are  still 
putting  every  cent  they  earn  over  actual  cash  operating  cost  into  the 
maintenance  and  development  of  their  properties,  and  the  dividend 
period  is  not  yet  in  sight. 

Marble  for  interior  use  is  a  luxury  and  not  a  necessity.  Consid- 
ered as  a  building  material  for  interior  use,  marble  is  not  fireproof. 
Whenever  exposed  to  a  severe  fire  it  has  invariably  shown  a  total 
loss.  From  a  purely  sanitary  point  of  view  it  possesses  no  real  ad- 
vantages over  competing  and  cheaper  materials.  Its  only  advantage 
lies  in  its  richer  texture  and  more  pleasing  appearance.  This  fact 
becomes  painfully  apparent  when  we  endeavor  to  sell  the  less  hand- 
some grades  at  which  might  be  termed  marble  prices  in  competition 
with  slate  ceramic  tiles,  hard  plaster,  metal  door  and  window  trim, 
and  certain  of  the  ordinary  limestones  which  are  sometimes  used  for 
interior  work. 

Interior  marble  enters  not  at  all  into  the  cost  of  ordinary  living 
and  is  but  a  small  factor  in  the  cost  of  high  living. 

The  American  quarries  can  easily  produce  enough  marble  suitable 
for  interior  use  to  supply  the  country's  needs.  But,  even  when  of  as 
good  quality  and  just  as  handsome  as  the  imported  marbles,  it  is  of 
such  a  different  appearance  that  architects  and  owners  often  insist 
upon  the  imported  marble  in  order  to  secure  certain  definite  archi- 
tectural effects.  The  matter  is  often  a  matter  of  taste,  pure  and 
simple,  and,  within  rather  wide  limits,  is  not  a  question  of  cost. 

Tne  average  cost  to  the  purchaser  of  imported  marble,  as  finished 
and  set  in  place  in  the  building,  is  not  less  than  $12  per  cubic  foot. 
The  tariff  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  would  not  make  much  difference 
to  the  purchaser,  even  if  he  benefited  by  its  removal,  which  he  prob- 
ably would  not. 

The  imported  marbles  have  a  large  market  in  this  country,  based 
mostly  on  differences  of  taste  and  partly  upon  a  prejudice  hi  favor 
of  imported  materials,  which  the  American  producers  have  so  far 
not  been  able  to  capture  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  this  fact  is  not  at 
all  due  to  any  lack  of  good  American  marble.  The  existence  of  the 
tariff  has  enabled  American  producers  to  secure  prices  for  a  small 
part  of  their  product — not  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  whole — 
that  are  comparable  with  those  at  which  imported  marbles  are  sold. 
This  has  compensated,  in  some  measure,  for  the  very  low  prices  at 
which  most  of  their  product  must  be  sold,  if  sold  at  all. 

We  are  fully  convinced  that  if  the  tariff  on  blocks  is  removed  or 
seriously  lowered,  the  only  result  will  be  a  reduction  in  the  revenues 
of  the  Government  and  an  appreciable  loss  to  the  American  pro- 
ducers. Were  it  otherwise,  the  American  producers  would  long  ago 
have  driven  the  imported  marbles  out  of  this  country.  In  our 
attempts  to  supplant  them,  we  often  cut  the  price  by  more  than  the 
amount  of  the  tariff,  but  without  result. 

From  1910  to  1911  the  average  price  of  marble  blocks  imported 
into  this  country  increased  by  about  36  cents  per  cubic  foot;  1911, 


922  TABIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

however,  was  rather  a  dull  year  in  the  interior  marble  business. 
The  decrease  in  the  quantity  of  imported  marble  used  in  1911  as 
compared  with  that  used  in  1910  was  about  20  per  cent,  accompanied 
with  an  increase  in  the  price  of  marble  of  36  cents  per  cubic  foot. 
The  corresponding  decrease  in  the  use  of  domestic  marble  for  inte- 
rior purposes  during  the  same  period  was  nearly  23  per  cent,  so  that 
the  use  of  domestic  marble  diminished  more  than  the  use  of  imported 
marble,  notwithstanding  the  increase  in  the  price  of  imported  marble 
and  with  practically  no  change  in  the  price  of  domestic  marble.  We 
do  not  believe  that  the  manufacturers  using  mainly  imported  blocks 
and  having  no  quarries  of  their  own,  are  at  any  serious  disadvantage 
as  compared  with  the  American  producers. 

About  25  per  cent  of  the  manufacturing  capacity  of  the  country 
not  connected  with  any  quarries  is  located  in  Greater  New  York. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  labor  conditions  in  Greater  New  York  are 
such  that  business  there  is  not  attractive  to  the  American  producer, 
and  it  is  a  fact  that  American  producers  do  not  ship  one  penny's 
worth  of  finished  marble  into  Greater  New  York  at  the  present  time. 
Therefore,  in  the  matter  of  finished  material,  the  New  York  manu- 
facturers in  their  own  city,  which  is  the  greatest  interior  marble 
market  in  the  world,  have  absolutely  no  competition  from  the 
American  producer. 

We  simply  request  that  the  members  of  the  committee,  if  they  can 
possibly  find  time,  will  read  the  brief  which  we  have  submitted, 
and  beyond  that  I  have  nothing  further  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  give  consideration  to  your  suggestions. 


TARIFF  ON  MARBLE. 

To  the  honorable  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  signers  of  this  memorial  represent  at  least  95  per  cent  of  the 
business  of  American  marble  producers  who  produce  marble  suitable  for  interior 
work. 

We  respectfully  request  that  the  tariff  on  marble  be  maintained  at  its  present  value. 

Our  primary  reason  for  making  this  request  is  that  we  believe  the  maintenance  of 
the  present  tariff  is  essential  to  the  reasonable  success  of  our  business. 

Practically  all  of  the  marble  imported  into  this  country  is  used  for  interior  work; 
the  question,  therefore,  lies  between  all  of  the  imported  marble  on  one  hand  and  that 
portion  of  the  domestic  marble  produced  in  this  country  which  is  used  for  interior 
work. 

Interior  marble  is  not  a  necessity  of  life;  it  is  not  used  by  people  of  moderate  and  lim- 
ited means;  it  is  used  only  by  corporations  and  people  of  considerable  wealth:  we,  there- 
fore, submit  that  it  is  a  proper  article  upon  which  to  levy  a  tariff  for  the  purposes  of 
revenue.  We  believe  that  the  present  tariff  on  marble  will  yield  more  revenue  than 
any  lower  tariff;  it  is  even  probable  that  an  increase  in  revenue  would  result  from  some 
increase  in  the  tariff,  but  as  the  present  tariff  has  been  used  for  a  number  of  years  and 
we  have  our  business  adjusted  on  that  basis,  we  confine  our  request  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  present  tariff  just  as  it  is. 

The  reports  of  (he  Treasury  Department  show  that  for  the  eight  fiscal  years  from 
1905  to  1912.  inclusive,  there  were  imported  into  this  country  in  the  form  of  blocks 
alone,  and  neglecting  all  other  marble  products,  a  total  of  4,859,362  cubic  feet,  an 
average  yearly  importation  of  607,420  cubic  feet.  From  the  report  of  the  Geological 
Survey  on  the  production  and  consumption  of  stone  in  the  United  States  it  appears 
that  during  the  eight  calendar  years  from  1904  to  1911,  inclusive,  of  domestic  marble 
produced  in  this  country  a  total  of  3.890.106  cubic  feet  were  used  for  interior  work; 
this  is  a  yearly  average  of  486.263  cubic  feet,  as  compared  with  a  yearly  average  for 
the  imporlc-d  marble  of  607,420  cubic  feet. 


SCHEDULE   B.  923 

PABAGBAPHS    111-112— MABBLE. 

The  present  tariff  on  marble  blocks  is  $0.65  per  cubic  foot.  The  average  yearly 
revenue  for  the  years  from  1905  to  1912  on  the  marble  blocks  imported  during  that 
period  was,  therefore,  $394,823.  If  the  tariff  were  reduced  to  50  per  cent  of  its  present 
value  and  imported  marble  substituted  for  all  of  the  domestic  marble  used  for  interior 
work,  the  yearly  revenue  would  amount  to  $355,446.98.  The  annual  reduction  from 
the  revenue  actually  collected  would  be  $39,376.02. 

In  the  classification  of  domestic  marble  by  the  Geological  Survey  is  an  item  of ' '  rough 
blocks  sold  to  manufacturers."  It  is  probable  that  a  portion  of  this  marble  finds  ita 
way  into  interior  work;  we  have  no  means  of  getting  at  the  exact  amount,  but  we  do 
know  from  our  knowledge  of  our  own  business  that  it  is  a  relatively  small  percentage 
of  the  whole.  The  omission  of  this  marble  from  the  table  submitted  herewith  is  more 
than  offset  by  the  following  facts: 

Even  among  the  domestic  marbles  used  for  interior  work  there  is  a  large  percentage 
which  is  of  relatively  low  grade.  It  is  sold  at  a  price  with  which  imported  marble 
could  not  compete,  even  if  there  were  no  tariff;  it  is  sold  at  this  low  price  because  the 
people  to  whom  it  is  sold  would  not  use  marble  at  all  if  they  had  to  pay  the  price  at 
which  the  imported  marble  would  have  to  be  sold  even  if  it  were  admitted  duty  free. 
For  these  reasons  we  believe  that  our  estimate  of  the  reduction  in  revenue  that  would 
result  from  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  imported  marble  is  too  small  rather  than  too  large. 
The  tariff  on  imported  marble  does  not  amount  to  more  than  6  or  7  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  marble  set  in  place  in  the  building.  In  those  cases  where  owners  and 
architects  want  the  imported  marble  we  believe  they  would  still  use  it  even  if  the 
tariff  were  somewhat  higher.  The  existence  of  the  tariff  enables  the  American  pro- 
ducers to  sell  then-  better  grades  of  marble  at  a  price  which  compensates  for  the  lower 
prices  thay  have  to  accept  for  their  lower  grades.  AYe  are  fully  convinced  that  con- 
siderable variation  might  be  made  from  the  present  tariff  in  either  direction  without  any 
material  effect  on  the  amount  of  imported  marble  used;  on  the  other  hand,  a  material 
reduction  in  the  tariff  would  seriously  diminish  the  amount  of  domestic  marble  used. 

The  total  consumption  of  interior  marble  is  necessarily  limited;  it  depends  entirely 
upon  the  activity  in  the  building  trades  and  is  confined  to  buildings  of  the  more 
expensive  class.  There  is  submitted  herewith  a  table  showing  the  importation  of 
foreign  marble  blocks  for  the  eight  years  above  mentioned,  also  a  table  showing  the 
consumption  of  domestic  marble  for  interior  purposes  for  the  calendar  y^ars  from 
1904  to  1911.  By  comparing  these  yearly  figures  with  the  dates  of  financial  stringency 
it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  consumption  of  both  classes  of  marble  for  interior  work 
is  directly  dependent  upon  the  state  of  trade.  The  figures  yield  no  reason  whatever 
for  supposing  that  the  present  tariff  has  had  any  deterrent  effect  upon  the  use  of  im- 
ported marble.  Since  about  the  year  1880  there  has  been  a  steady  increase  in  the 
price  of  Italian  blocks,  due  to  concerted  action  of  the  Italian  producers  and  exporters. 
About  1880  Italian  blocks  of  low  grade  could  be  purchased  in  New  Yor"k  for  about 
$1.80  per  cubic  feet;  similar  blocks  now  bring  not  less  than  $2.80  per  cubic  foot.  Dur- 
ing the  intervening  time  the  tariff  has  varied  somewhat.  Notwithstanding  the  tariff 
and  the  increased  price  of  Italian  blocks,  the  consumption  of  imported  marble  has 
increased  with  the  increase  in  expensive  buildings  and  has  varied  directly  with  the 
number  of  such  buildings  under  contract  at  any  time.  The  table  indicates  that  the 
use  of  imported  marble  in  this  country  is  in  excess  of  the  use  of  domestic  marble  for 
interior  work.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  use  of  interior  marble  falls  off  a  little  after 
the  severest  stress  of  a  panic  is  passed  and  does  not  increase  for  some  time  after  better 
conditions  have  come  about.  This  is  due  to  the  fact,  in  the  first  place,  that  contracts 
made  during  prosperous  times  have  to  be  completed,  and,  in  the  second  place,  that 
new  contract"  are  not  entered  into  for  some  time  after  prosperity  begins. 

Most  of  the  marble  imported  into  this  country  comes  from  the  Carrara  district  in 
Italy;  its  export  from  that  district  is  controlled  by  a  relatively  small  number  of  firms, 
who  undoubtedly  act  together  in  the  matter  of  controlling  the  price.  Marble  exported 
from  Italy  is  also  subjected  to  an  export  tax;  of  this  fact  the  signers  of  this  memorial 
are  sure,  but  we  are  not  in  possession  of  the  exact  amount  of  the  tax.  There  is  abso- 
lutely no  combination  with  a  view  to  regulation  of  prices  among  American  producers; 
competition  between  them  is  absolutely  free  and  extraordinarily  keen.  There  is  no 
understanding  as  to  the  control  of  prices  between  American  producers  and  American 
manufacturers.  The  competition  between  them  is  also  entirely  free  and  very  keen. 
Natural  conditions  make  it  imperative  for  the  American  producers  to  finish  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  their  own  products;  the  material  from  which  much  of  this  finished 
work  is  made  is  subject  to  so  much  waste  that  it  would  not  stand  the  cost  of  transporta- 
tion to  other  points  in  the  rough  block.  The  fact  that  the  American  producers  do  a 
large  amount  of  finished  work  is  a  source  of  differences  between  them  and  the  manu- 


924 


TABIFF  HEARINGS. 


P ABAGBAPHS   1 1 1-1 12— MABBLE. 

facturers,  and  the  necessity  they  are  under  of  working  up  the  material  is  practically 
a  permanent  guaranty  that  competition  will  always  be  keen. 

As  marble  producers  with  a  considerable  amount  of  capital  invested  in  American 
industries  and  employing  American  labor,  we  feel  that  we  are  entitled  to  some  protec- 
tion against  the  imported  material;  we  are  taking  the  liberty  of  submitting  herewith 
a  memorial  which  was  submitted  to  this  committee  some  years  ago.  We  content  our- 
selves, in  this  instance,  with  simply  submitting  this  former  memorial,  with  the  statement 
that  all  of  its  arguments  are  just  as  applicable  to-day  as  they  were  when  the  memorial 
was  originally  submitted. 

Alabama  Marble  Co.,  Alabama;  George  B.  Sickles  Marble  Co.,  Georgia; 
Eoyal  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  T.  S.  Godfrey  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee; 
Gray  Eagle  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Tennessee  Producers  Marble  Co., 
Tennessee;  John  M.  Ross,  Tennessee;  Knoxville  Marble  Co.,  Tennes- 
see; Empire  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Meadow  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee; 
Boss  &  Republic  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Vermont  Marble  Co.,  Ver- 
mont and  Alaska;  Georgia  Marble  Co.,  Georgia;  Blue  Ridge  Marble 
Co.,  Georgia;  Asbury  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Evans  Marble  Co.,  Ten- 
nessee; John  J.  Craig  Co.,  Tennessee;  Knox  Marble  &  Railway  Co., 
Tennessee;  Victoria  Maible  Co.,  Tennessee;  Fenton  Construction  Co., 
Tennessee;  Appalachian  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Cumberland  Marble 
Mill  Co.,  Tennessee;  Colorado- Yule  Marble  Co.,  Colorado;  Barney  Mar- 
ble Co.,  Vermont;  Grant  Marble  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.;  Pickel  Marble 
&  Granite  Co.,  St.  Loui«,  Mo.;  St.  Louis  Marble  &  Tile  Co.,  St.  Louis, 
Mo.;  Drake  Marble  &  Tile  Co.,  St.  Paul,  Minn.;  Joseph  Musto-Sons- 
Keenan  Co.,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Comparison  of  amounts  of  marble  (in  cubic  feet)  imported  into  the   United  States  and 
amounts  reported  as  used  for  interior  work  by  American  producers. 


Fiscal  year. 

Imported. 

Calendar  year. 

Domestic 
marble  used 
for  interior 
work. 

1905    

657,  099 

1904... 

359,  418 

1906  

S20,  040 

1905  

480,  757 

1907                     

707,  598 

1906  

492,  127 

1908                                              .       ... 

625,  159 

1907  

543,  129 

1909              .          

665,  S27 

1908  

555,357 

1910 

726,  326 

1909  

445,081 

1911                   

637,224 

1910  

571,  899 

1912  

619,  488 

1911  

442,338 

Yearly  average  

*,  859,  301 
607,  420 

Yearly  average  

3,890,106 
486,  263 

TARIFF  ON  MARBLE. 

To  the  honorable  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  House  of  Representatives. 

The  presenters  of  this  memorial  represent  more  than  90  per  cent  of  the  business  of 
the  American  marble  producers,  the  foreign  marble  importers,  the  marble  mills,  and 
marble  manufactories  of  the  United  States. 

By  the  tariff  act  of  March  3,  1883,  the  rates  of  duty  on  all  classes  of  marble  were 
materially  reduced.  The  act  of  October  1,  1890,  made  no  change.  The  act  of  August 
27,  1894,  somewhat  reduced  these  rates;  but  the  act  of  July  24,  1897,  restored  the  rates 
of  1883,  with  only  a  slight  change  in  the  classification  of  the  unimportant  items  of 
slabs  and  mosaics. 

Eighty  per  cent  of  all  the  marble  imported  into  the  United  States  comes  from  Italy. 
Any  comparison,  therefore,  of  the  relative  methods  and  conditions  of  producing 
marble  at  home  and  abroad  is  necessarily  with  Italy. 

The  first  process  in  the  production  of  marble  is  the  quarrying  of  blocks.  The  con- 
ditions of  quarrying  in  this  country  and  in  Italy  are  very  diverse.  The  deposits  in 
the  United  States  are  often  deep  below  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  in  all  cases  it  is 
necessary  to  actually  cut  the  blocks  out  of  the  quarry  by  machinery  or  tools  to  avoid 
shattering  the  marble.  In  Italy,  the  deposits  are  exposed  on  the  surface  of  the  moun- 


SCHEDULE   B.  925 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

tain,  and  the  blocks  are  simply  blasted  off  and  afterwards  pointed  or  ecabbled  into 
regular  shapes. 

The  second  process  is  the  sawing  of  these  blocks  into  slabs  the  full  size  of  the  block, 
or  into  smaller  pieces,  sawed  to  size,  for  parts  of  monuments,  or  other  specific  purposes. 
The  full-size  slabs  are  finally  coped,  or  broken  into  slabs  of  smaller  dimensions. 

The  third  process  is  the  finishing  of  sawed  marble  by  rubbing,  cutting,  carving, 
turning,  polishing,  etc.,  for  its  final  use. 

For  the  six  years  ending  June  30,  1908,  69  per  cent  in  value  of  all  marble  imported 
into  the  United  States  was  in  blocks,  6  per  cent  in  slabs,  22  per  cent  in  manufactures 
of  marble,  and  3  per  cent  in  mosaic  cubes.  Almost  the  entire  importations  of  onyx 
are  in  blocks. 

FOREIGN    MARBLE   IS   A   PROPER   COMMODITY   UPON    WHICH  TO    RAISE   REVENUE. 

People  of  moderate  means  use  little  marble  except  for  cemetery  purposes.  For 
that  they  use  a  large  amount;  but  they  now  use,  and  they  will  continue  to  use,  Ameri- 
can marble  almost  exclusively,  because  it  is  better  for  outdoor  use,  and  that  mainly 
used  in  cemeteries  is  cheaper  than  any  foreign  marble  would  be,  even  if  admitted 
free  of  duty.  Foreign  marbles  imported  into  the  United  States  are  either  colored 
marbles  or  expensive  grades  of  lignt  marble.  They  are  a  luxury  and  their  use  de- 
pends more  upon  conditions  of  general  prosperity  than  upon  variations  of  cost.  For 
example,  under  the  business  depression  beginning  in  1893  the  total  importation  of 
marble  fell  from  $1,135,176.23  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1893,  to  $711,289.80  for 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1894;  and  under  the  business  depression  beginning  in  No- 
vember, 1907,  the  total  importation  fell  from  $1,536,156  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1907,  to  $1,159,543  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1908. 

THE   DUTY   ON   FOREIGN   MARBLE   TENDS   TO    REDUCE   THE   PRICE   OP  THE   MEDIUM   AND 
CHEAPER   GRADES    OF  MARBLE. 

The  production  of  Italian  marble  is  confined  to  a  Email  territory  about  Carrara,  and 
its  export  price  to  this  country  is  controlled  by  a  few  Italian  firms.  In  so  far  as  the 
duty  on  marble  is  not,  in  effect,  paid  by  them,  it  operates  to  tax  the  wealthier  consumer 
who  buys  expensive  ornamental  marble,  while  the  buyer  of  grades  of  marble  in  com- 
mon use  by  the  people  at  large  gets  them  at  a  lower  price  by  reason  of  the  tariff.  The 
finer  grades  of  American  marble  are  so  mixed  with  the  cheaper  grades  in  the  same 
quarries  that  they  must  be  worked  together.  The  more  of  the  finer  there  is  pro- 
duced the  more  of  the  cheaper  grades  there  must  be,  and  the  lower  their  price.  The 
marble  in  ordinary  use  for  cemetery  purposes  and  much  of  that  used  for  building 
purposes  could  not  be  produced  by  itself  alone  for  the  price  at  which  it  is  sold.  It  is 
the  production  from  the  same  quarries  of  the  higher  grades  of  ornamental  marbles 
competing  with  foreign  marbles  that  admits  of  the  production  of  much  of  the  cheaper 
marble. 

Of  the  total  output  of  sawed  marble  for  the  last  five  years  of  the  largest  American 
producer,  whose  quarries  produce  the  highest-priced  marble  in  this  country,  (1)  45 
per  cent  was  sold  for  less  than  $1  per  cubic  foot,  (2)  15  per  cent  for  $1  to  $2  per  cubic 
foot,  (3)  34  per  cent  for  $2  to  $3  per  cubic  foot,  (4)  6  per  cent  for  $3  and  over  per  cubic 
foot.  None  of  the  first  and  second  divisions  and  only  a  part  of  the  third  and  fourth 
are  in  competition  with  Italian  marble.  Considerable  of  the  third  division  is  sold 
below  the  price  of  Italian  marble  and  considerable  of  the  fourth  above  it. 

A  PROTECTIVE   DUTY   ON   MARBLE   IS    NECESSARY. 

Any  advantage  to  American  quarries  from  machinery  is  more  than  offset. — The  Italian 
quarries  have  certain  natural  advantages  over  the  quarries  of  the  United  States.  In 
the  first  place  almost  their  entire  product  is  high-priced  marble,  and  hence  the  cost 
of  quarrying  it  is  a  much  less  percentage  of  its  selling  price  than  in  the  case  of  American 
marble.  The  character  of  the  Italian  deposits,  as  hereinbefore  explained,  more  than 
offset  any  advantages  accruing  to  American  quarries  from  the  use  of  machinery. 
Machinery  is  used  in  our  quarries  from  necessity  and  it  is  not  used  in  the  Italian 
quarries,  by  the  larger  producers  at  least,  because  the  present  method  is  cheaper. 

The  American  quarries  derive  no  protection  from  freight. — To  the  principal  distribut- 
ing points  in  the  United  States  the  freight  will  average  as  much  as  from  Italy.  For 
example,  the  present  rates  per  cubic  foot  are  approximately:  To  New  York  from 
Italv  by  steamer  36  cents,  from  Vermont  25  cents,  and  from  Tennessee  65  cents;  to 
Baltimore  from  Italy  by  steamer  38  cents,  from  Vermont  37  cents,  and  from  Tennessee 


926  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

59  cents;  to  New  Orleans  from  Italy  by  steamer  40  cents,  from  Vermont  74  cents,  and 
from  Tennessee  35  cents;  to  San  Francisco  from  Italy  by  steamer  90  cents,  from  Vermont 
$1.33  by  steamer  or  $1.80  all  rail,  and  from  Tennessee  $1.80.  The  comparison  from 
the  Georgia  and  Alabama  quarries  would  be  quite  as  favorable  to  the  Italian  quarries, 
and  from  the  Colorado  and  Alaska  quarries  still  more  so.  Our  quarries,  therefore, 
even  in  our  own  market  have  no  natural  protection  against  those  of  Italy. 

Blocks  are  not  rait)  material,  but  represent  almost  entirely  labor. — The  raw  material  in 
the  mountains  in  Italy  is  of  relatively  small  value,  but  the  cost  of  the  blocks  is  chiefly 
the  labor  required  to  quarry  them  and  move  them  to  the  seaboard.  In  this  country 
also  an  undeveloped  quarry  is  of  little  value.  The  prevailing  royalty  paid  a  land- 
owner for  the  right  to  quarry  marble  on  his  land  is  only  5  cents  per  cubic  foot  of  mer- 
chantable marble  produced.  Two-thirds  of  the  expense  of  producing  marble  in  this 
country  is  for  labor  direct,  and  about  one-fourth  for  supplies  and  material,  including 
machinery,  iron,  tools,  coal,  etc.  It  is  estimated  that  90  per  cent  of  the  expense  of 
the  production  of  marble  is  directly  or  indirectly  for  labor.  The  competition  between 
Italian  and  American  marble,  therefore,  is  peculiarly  a  competition  between  Italian 
and  American  labor. 

THE   PRESENT   RATES   OP   DUTY   ON   MARBLE    OUGHT   NOT  TO   BE   REDUCED. 

The  duty  on  marble  yields  a  revenue  on  an  article  which  is  a  luxury.  It  tends  to 
decrease  the  cost  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  marble  which  are  used  by  the  people  at  large. 
It  is  the  protection  afforded  the  high-priced  marble  that  has  made  possible  the  pro- 
duction and  use  in  the  United  States  of  great  quantities  of  medium  and  cheaper 
grades  of  marble  for  cemetery  purposes,  buildings,  etc.  Such  use  of  marble  is  entirely 
peculiar  to  our  own  country.  It  affords  protection  direct  to  American  labor,  not  by 
lessening  the  importation  but  by  upholding  the  prices  of  high-priced,  colored  marbles 
and  expensive  grades  of  light  marbles.  It  tends  also  to  further  develop  the  remarkable 
marble  deposits  of  this  country.  Marble  is  abundant  in  all  the  States  along  the 
Appalachian  range,  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Canada  line,  viz:  Alabama,  Georgia, 
Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts,  and  Vermont.  It  is  also  found  in  Missouri,  Colorado,  Idaho, 
Texas,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Utah,  California,  Washington,  and  Alaska.  The 
ornamental  or  colored  marbles  found  in  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Vermont,  Missouri, 
Arizona,  and  many  other  sections  of  the  country  are  of  the  highest  artistic  order. 
The  development  of  new  marble  quarries  in  Alabama,  Colorado,  and  Alaska  is  at 
present  very  active.  But  the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  in  developing  these  natural 
resources  can  not  be  appreciated  except  by  experience. 

The  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  employed  in  the  production,  sawing,  and  manu- 
facture of  American  and  foreign  marbles  is  much  greater  than  the  present  rates  of 
duty  on  marble,  and  those  rates  are  not  sufficient  to  equalize,  in  our  own  markets,  the 
position  of  the  marble  quarries,  mills,  and  shops  of  the  United  States  with  like  indus- 
tries abroad. 

We  recognize,  however,  that  the  present  rates  have  prevailed  since  1883,  except 
for  the  short  period  between  1894  and  1897,  and  that  business  and  trade  relations  have 
long  been  adjusted  to  those  rates.  Therefore  the  undersigned,  representing  more 
than  90  per  cent  of  the  American  marble  producing  and  foreign  marble  importing 
interests  of  the  United  States,  and  of  its  marble  mills  and  manufactories,  ask  that  the 
present  rates  of  duty  on  marble  be  left  as  they  are. 

We  call  your  attention  to  two  instances  of  wrong  classification  which  work  great  in- 
justice to  marble  and  ought  to  be  corrected. 

Limestones  susceptible  of  polish  and  usable  for  decorative  purposes. — -Under  the 
present  tariff  (par.  117)  limestone  unmanufactured  is  dutiable  at  12  cents  per  cubic 
foot — less  than  one-fifth  the  marble  rate.  Under  this  paragraph  the  right  is  claimed 
to  import  Istrian,  Hauteville,  Botticino,  and  other  fancy  stones,  which  are  sold  and 
used  in  direct  competition  with  regular  high-grade  marbles.  The  commercial  and 
ordinary  or  popular  meaning  of  marble  is  either  any  limestone  which  is  capable  of 
taking  a  polish  or  else  any  limestone  which  is  suitable  for  being  used  for  decorative 
or  ornamental  purposes.  (See  Century  Dictionary,  New  American  Encyclopedia, 
New  International  Encyclopedia.)  Accordingly  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers 
have  held  that  Istrian  (Decision  3803)  and  Hauteville  (Decision  6398)  should  under 
the  present  tariff  be  classed  as  marbles  and  pay  the  marble  rate.  The  decision  in  the 
latter  case  was  affirmed  by  the  United  States  Circtiit  Court,  but  on  appeal  was  reversed 
by  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals,  which  followed  the  more  technical  and  limited 
definition  that  only  that  limestone  is  marble  which  is  of  a  crystalline  structure.  The 


SCHEDULE   B.  927 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

whole  subject  of  the  proper  classification  of  these  stones  under  the  present  tariff 
now  remains  much  confused  and  is  still  in  litigation.  Without  reference  to  what  may 
be  their  proper  classification  under  the  wording  of  the  present  tariff,  they  should  in 
the  new  act  be  classed  according  to  the  purposes  for  which  they  are  capable  of  being 
used,  and  in  fact  are  used  (in  conformity  with  the  similitude  clause  of  the  present 
tariff  act,  sec.  7),  and  on  an  equality  with  the  stone  with  which  they  directly 
compete.  They  are  capable  both  of  being  polished  and  of  being  used  for  interior 
decorative  purposes  of  a  high  order,  and  in  fact  are  so  used  in  many  important  build- 
ings in  direct  competition  with  regular  marbles,  both  American  and  foreign.  We 
therefore  respectfully  request  that  limestones,  when  susceptible  of  taking  a  polish 
and  suitable  for  interior  decorative  purposes,  be  specifically  classed  with  marble  and 
take  the  marble  rate.  Limestone  of  low  grade  used  as  a  building  stone  and  not  for 
higher  decorative  purposes  should  continue  to  be  classed  with  freestone,  sandstone, 
and  other  building  stone. 

Breccia. — Under  the  present  tariff  (paragraph  508)  breccia  is  admitted  free.  It  is 
a  conglomerate  marble  susceptible  of  taking  a  polish  and  used  in  direct  competition 
with  regular  marble  for  interior  decorative  purposes  in  many  public  and  other  large 
buildings.  In  the  statistics  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  "Importations 
entered  for  consumption, ' '  breccia  is  now  included  in  the  statistics  of  marble,  being 
classed  as  free  marble  as  distinguished  from  other  marbles  which  are  dutiable.  We 
respectfully  request  that  it  be  specifically  included  with  marble  and  take  the  marble 
rate. 

Another  great  advantage  of  the  Italian  quarries  lies  in  the  following  facts: 
The  unsound  and  worthless  material  can  be  separated  from  the  good  and  rejected 
immediately  after  the  marble  is  blown  down  from  the  quarry  faces.    At  this  stage 
the  rejected  material  can  not  have  cost  more  than  5  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

In  the  American  quarries  the  marble  has  to  be  taken  out  a  block  at  a  time.  The 
blocks  which  prove  worthless  and  have  to  be  rejected  on  the  bank  of  the  quarry, 
represent  an  actual  cost  of  not  less  than  40  cents  per  cubic  foot.  The  rejection  of 
worthless  material  does  not  end  here,  however.  There  are  still  many  blocks  which 
contain  good  and  bad  in  the  same  block  and  they  can  only  be  separated  after  sawing. 
Everything  rejected  at  this  stage  represents  a  cost  on  the  average  of  not  less  than  $1 
per  cubic  foot.  All  of  the  material  rejected  in  both  Italy  and  America  is  a  burden  of 
added  cost  that  has  to  be  borne  by  the  good  material.  It  is  evident  that  on  this  point 
the  Italian  quarries  have  a  much  less  burdensome  load  to  carry  than  the  American 
quarries. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Vermont  Marble  Co.,  Vermont;  Rutland-Florence  Marble  Co.,  Vermont; 
Brandon  Italian  Marble  Co.,  Vermont;  Barney  Marble  Co.,  Vermont; 
Norcross-West  Marble  Co.,  Vermont;  O.  W.  Norcross,  Vermont;  George 
P.  Eastman,  Vermont;  South  Dover  Marble  Co.,  New  York;  Waverly 
Marble  Co.,  New  York;  White  Marble  &  Terrazzo  Co.,  Massachusetts; 
Westfield  Marble  &  Sandstone  Co.,  Massachusetts;  Lee  Marble  Works, 
Massachusetts;  Evans  Marble  Co.,  Maryland;  Georgia  Marble  Co., 
Georgia;  Geo.  B.  Sickles  Marble  Co.,  Georgia;  Blue  Ridge  Marble  Co., 
Georgia;  Georgia  Marble  Finishing  Works,  Georgia;  Southern  Marble 
Co.,  Georgia;  Kennesaw  Marble  Co.,  Georgia;  John  M.  Ross,  Tennes- 
see; The  Knoxville  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Gray  Eagle  Marble  Co., 
Tennessee;  Jno.  J.  Craig  Co.,  Tennessee;  Empire  Marble  Co.,  Tennes- 
see; Godfrey  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Ross  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee; 
Republic  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  American  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee; 
The  United  States  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  The  Victoria  Marble  Co., 
Tennessee;  Tennessee  Producers'  Marble  Co.,  Tennessee;  Knox  Mar- 
ble &  Railway  Co.,  Tennessee;  Alabama  Marble  Co.,  Alabama;  Colo- 
rado-Yule Marble  Co.,  Colorado. 

John  Eisele,  of  Batterson  &  Eisele;  W.  K.  Fertig,  of  R.  C.  Fisher  & 
Co.;  J.  W.  Harrison,  of  Ellin,  Kitson  &  Co.;  E.  J.  McGratty,  of 
McGratty  &  Sons;  John  R.  Taber,  of  Taber  &  Co.;  C.  D.  Jackson,  of 
C.  D.  Jackson  &  Co.;  R.  C.  Fisher,  of  R.  C.  Fisher  &  Co.;  Committee 
of  the  Marble  Industry  of  New  York. 

W.  H.  Evans,  of  Baltimore.  President  and  Committee  of  the  National 
Association  of  Marble  Dealers. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  November  23, 1908. 


928  TARIFF    HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JACKSON,  REPRESENTING  C.  D.  JACKSON  & 

CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

PARAGRAPHS  111  AND  114. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Jackson,  will  you  please  state  the  paragraph 
to  which  you  wish  to  refer  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Paragraphs  111  and  114,  marble. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  9,  191S. 
The  COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Since  1908  a  number  of  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  cost  of  production  of  marble 
and  stone  in  rough  blocks  (and  consequently  in  rough  sawed  slabs)  in  all  the  quarrying 
districts  abroad  through  higher  wages,  pension  funds,  road  taxes,  transportation,  etc., 
which  necessitated  the  increase  in  selling  prices  abroad  and  consequently  in  the 
United  States. 

The  adherence  to  a  disproportionately  high  duty  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  (un- 
changed since  the  tariff  act  of  1897)  on  rough  blocks  of  marble  hindered  the  importa- 
tion of  foreign  marbles  necessary  in  the  construction  and  ornamentation  of  buildings. 

The  cost  prices  of  the  different  foreign  marbles  vary  in  accordance  with  the  facilities 
with  which  the  material  can  be  quarried,  the  location  of  the  quarries,  the  distance  to 
be  covered  by  railroad  transportation  between  the  quarries,  and  the  port  at  which 
marble  is  embarked  for  the  United  States. 

In  the  following  tabulation  we  wish  to  show  the  present  approximate  average  costs 
of  marble  in  rough  blocks,  average  sized,  large  and  small  blocks  mixed,  as  produced  by 
quarries,  loaded  on  cars  at  railroad  station  nearest  to  the  quarry. 

Duty. 
Category  1.  Present  average  cost  of  poushable  hard  limestone,  85  cents  per 

cubic  foot ._ $0.  65 

Category  2.  Present  average  cost  of  ordinary  marble,  $1.30  per  cubic  foot 65 

Category  3.  Present  average  cost  of  veined  type,  $2  per  cubic  foot 65 

Category  4.  Present  average  cost  of  veined  statuary  type,  $2.40  per  cubic  foot . .       .65 

Category  5.  Low-priced  colored  marble,  $1.50  per  cubic  foot 65 

Category  6.  Medium-priced  colored  marble,  $3.50  per  cubic  foot 65 

Category  7.  High-priced  colored  marble,  $7  per  cubic  foot 65 

Based  upon  the  foregoing  average  cost  prices  (being  the  wholesale  selling  prices  to 
dealers  abroad) — 

Per  cent. 

The  duty  on  category  1  amounts  to 76J 

The  duty  on  category  2  amounts  to 50 

The  duty  on  category  3  amounts  to 32J 

The  duty  on  categoiy  4  amounts  to 27 

The  duty  on  category  5  amounts  to 40 

The  duty  on  category  t>  amounts  to 18 

The  duty  on  category  7  amounts  to 9 

The  importation  into  the  United  States  of  the  different  categories  can  be  classified 
by  percentage  as — • 

Per  cent. 

On  categoiy  1,  about 30 

On  category  2,  about 45 

On  category  3,  about 5 

On  category  4,  about ] 

On  category  5,  about 15 

On  category  6,  about 3 

On  category  7.  about 1 

From  this  it  will  bo  seen  that  the  present  duty  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  means  an 
average  duty  of  about  53.97  per  cent  on  a  crude  article  such  as  marble  in  blocks,  rough 
or  squared  only,  at  point  of  loading  from  quarries  abroad. 

A  further  detrimental  feature  enforced  since  January,  1913,  will  tend  to  reduce  still 
more  the  importation  of  foreign  marble. 


SCHEDULE   B. 


929 


PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

The  steamship  pool,  regulating  the  steamer  freight  rates  from  abroad,  has  imposed  a 
new  hardship  on  all  imported  marble.  The  freight  rates  have  been  increased  from 
20  to  35  per  cent,  which  necessitated  an  increase  in  the  selling  prices  here  of  from  10 
to  15  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

Another  very  serious  and  appreciable  increase  is  now  imposed  by  the  lighterage  and 
hoisting  companies  operating  in  the  port  of  New  York,  who  increased  their  minimum 
charges  for  transportation  to  consignors  of  marble  by  nearly  30  per  cent,  which  will 
increase  the  cost,  namely,  the  delivery  of  materials  to  mills,  by  additional  5  cents  per 
cubic  foot.  This  increase  went  into  effect  on  January  1,  1913. 

It  will  tend  to  decrease  more  the  demand  for  foreign  marble,  since  a  long  time 
unable  to  compete  with  domestic  products  which  are  not  subjected  to  these  exorbitant 
charges. 

We  therefore  respectfully  recommend  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to  reduce 
the  present  tariff  act  of  1909,  reading  as  follows:  "Marble  and  onyx  blocks,  rough  or 
squared  only,  65  cents  per  cubic  foot,"  to 45  cents  per  cubic  foot,  and  if  so  considered, 
the  tariff  should  read:  "Marble  and  onyx  in  blocks,  rough  or  squared  only,  45  cents  per 
cubic  foot." 

While  the  amount  of  this  reduction  may  not  seem  large  enough 
to  your  honorable  committee,  it  is  our  belief  that  it  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  overcome  the  existing  hardship,  at  least,  imported  marble 
could  be  sold  in  future  at  the  same  prices  as  it  was  sold  up  to  January 
1,  1913,  and  it  will  prevent  a  further  decrease  in  importation,  which 
would  further  reduce  the  revenues  to  the  Government. 

We  wish  to  state  the  tariff  act  of  1894,  paragraph  103,  provided  a 
tariff  on  marble  of  all  kinds  in  block,  rough  or  squared  only,  of  50 
cents  per  cubic  foot. 

The  following  facts  should  also  be  taken  into  consideration,  i.  e., 
that  none  of  the  different  species  of  marble  imported  into  this  coun- 
try exist  in  the  United  States  and  consequently  can  not  be  produced 
here,  so  no  harm  to  domestic  quarry  owners  can  result  by  the  im- 
portation of  marbles  from  abroad  at  a  lower  tariff  than  the  existing 
one. 

The  Government  report  shows  that  the  importation  of  foreign 
marble  into  the  United  States  is  as  follows: 


Cubic 
quantity. 

Import 
value. 

Duties. 

1907.  .  . 

707598-0 

$1  083  188 

$459  939  11 

1908  

525159-0 

796,  873 

341,353.91 

1909  

565827-0 

877  413 

367  789  98 

1910  

726326-0 

1,116,058 

472,112.30 

1911  

637224-0 

1  042  285 

414  195  76 

1912  

619488-0 

979,310 

402,667.29 

It  shows  the  falling  off  of  importations  of  foreign  marble  in  rough  blocks  considerably. 

Comparing  the  year  1907  with  the  years  1908  and  1909,  it  shows  a  decrease  of  im- 
portation of  314,210-0  cubic  feet,  and  a  decrease  of  duties  collected  by  the  Government 
of  $210,774.33. 

During  the  year  1910  a  large  demand  for  building  material  existed  generally  and 
domestic  quarries  not  being  able  to  supply  the  demand,  in  consequence  the  impor- 
tation of  foreign  marble  increased  during  that  year. 

However,  the  comparison  between  the  years  1910,  1911,  and  1912  shows  that  the 
importation  of  marble  in  rough  blocks  during  the  years  1911  and  1912  decreased  by 
195,940-0  cubic  feet,  and  the  Government  collected  during  1911,  $58,016.54  less  duty 
than  during  1910  and  during  1912,  $69,545.01  less  than  in  1910,  or  a  total  decrease  of 
$127,561.55. 

Marble  slabs. — Only  Carrara  marble  slabs  are  imported  to  this  country,  as  they  are 
the  only  material  that  can  stand  the  strain  of  transportation  without  great  damage, 
namely,  breakage. 

78939°— VOL  1—13 59 


930 


TAKIFF   HEAKINGS. 


PABAGBAPHS    111-112— MABBLE. 

The  average  prices  for  average-sized  slabs  of  average  grade,  free  on  cars  Carrara,  are: 


Cost 
price 
(square 
foot). 

Duty 
(square 
foot). 

Equal 
to— 

Category  1:  Up  to  1  inch  to  thickness  (mostly  J  Inch  are  imported)  

Cents. 
12 

Cents. 
8 

Percent. 
66.6 

Category  2:  Up  to  1}  inches  to  thickness  1."  .*.  '.  

17 

10 

58.5 

Category  3:  Up  to  1J  inches  in  thickness  

22 

10 

45.5 

Category  4:  Up  to  2  niches  in  thickness  

27 

12 

44.4 

^  The  proportion  of  each  of  these  categories  imported,  based  upon  the  entire  importa- 
tion of  sawed  slabs  in  this  country,  is  as  follows: 

Per  cent. 

Category  1,  up  to  1  inch 65 

Category  2,  up  to  1}  inches 30 

Category  3,  up  to  1$  inches 3 

Category  4,  up  to  2  inches 2 

which  means  an  average  duty  of  63.3  per  cent  on  the  value  of  the  slabs,  being  the 
wholesale  selling  price  to  dealers  abroad. 

As  we  respectfully  recommended  a  reduction  on  rough  blocks  from  65  cents  to  45 
cents,  being  about  30  per  cent  reduction,  the  duty  on  slabs  should  be  reduced  in  the 
same  proportion,  i.  e.: 


Present 
duty. 

Proposed 
duty. 

On  slabs  up  to  1  inch  

Cents. 
8 

Cents. 
6 

On  slabs  up  to  li  inches                           

10 

71 

On  slabs  up  to  2  inches  

12 

9 

The  tariff  act  of  1894  provided  approximately  the  same  duty  on  slabs  as  proposed 
herewith  and  if  our  recommendation  should  find  due  consideration,  the  new  tariff 
act  should  read: 

"Marble  and  onyx  sawed  or  dressed  if  not  more  than  1  inch  thickness,  6  cents  per 
superficial  foot.  If  more  than  1  inch  and  not  more  than  1£  inches  in  thickness,  7$ 
cents  per  superficial  foot.  If  more  than  1£  inches  and  not  more  than  2  inches  in  thick- 
ness, 9  cents  per  superficial  foot." 

Imported  slabs  are  largely  used  by  marble  manufacturers  who  dp  not  buy  blocks 
and  have  same  sawed  in  the  custom  sawmills.  These  custom  sawmills  are  disappear- 
ing rapidly  in  this  country,  as  all  the  larger  marble  manufacturers  are  equipped  with 
their  own  sawing  plants  as  part  of  their  manufacturing  equipment  solely  for  their 
own  use. 

This  proposed  duty  will  stimulate  the  demand  and  importation  of  foreign  slabs, 
which  has  fallen  off  lately  to  a  very  insignificant  amount,  while  under  the  tariff  act 
of  1894,  paragraph  104,  reading  as  follows: 

"Marble  sawed,  dressed,  or  otherwise,  including  marble  slabs,  mosaic  cubes,  and 
marble  paving  tiles,  85  cents  per  cubic  foot  (no  slab  to  be  computed  at  less  than  1 
inch  in  thickness)." 

The  importation  of  slabs  amounted  to  thousands  of  tons  per  year. 

Tiles. — The  present  duty,  according  to  tariff  act  of  1909,  on  imported  marble  tiles, 
classified  in  the  tariff  as  specified  under  paragraph  111,  provides  that  the  duty  on — 

"Slabs  or  paving  tiles  of  marble  or  onyx  containing  not  less  than  4  superficial  inches, 
if  not  more  than  1  inch  in  thickness,  8  cents  per  superficial  foot.  If  more  than  1  inch 
and  not  more  than  1£  inches  in  thickness,  10  cents  per  superficial  foot.  If  more  than 
1£  inches  and  not  more  than  2  inches  in  thickness,  12J  cents  per  superficial  foot.  If 
rubbed  in  whole  or  in  part,  2  cents  per  superficial  foot  in  addition." 

This  duty  is  entirely  out  of  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  goods  in  themselves. 


SCHEDULE   B.  931 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

Marble  tiles  are  made  from  slabs,  either  unfit  for  shipirtent  as  such  on  account  of 
defects,  such  as  cracks,  etc.,  or  from  pieces  of  marble  slabs  broken  or  damaged  while 
being  taken  out  of  the  saw  frames,  or  broken  in  yards  of  sawmill. 

Tiles  vary  in  sizes  from  about  1  to  6  square  feet,  according  to  the  demand  and  sizes 
of  floors  to  be  covered,  according  to  specifications  of  architects.  Such  small  sound 
stock  can  be  usually  found  in  such  salvage  to  make  these  tiles. 

Tiles  are  used  either  in  thicknesses  of  three-fourths  inch  or  seven-eighths  inch. 
The  present  prices  abroad  are  about  16  cents  per  square  foot,  finished  and  ooxed,  free 
on  ci-  -s  at  the  mills  of  the  quarry. 

The  present  duty  on  marble  tiles  up  to  1  inch  in  thickness  is  10  cents,  equal  to  62$ 
per  cent. 

You  will  readily  see  the  inconsistency  of  such  high  tariff  on  an  article  representing 
hardly  any  outlay  of  labor  or  any  value  of  material,  if  you  compare  it  with  the  present 
duty  on  richly  finished  carved  and  polished  marblework  which  pays  only  an  ad 
valorem  of  50  per  cent. 

For  comparison,  we  name  herewith  prices  on  domestic  tiles  sold  by  quarries  in  the 
United  States: 

Vermont  or  Alabama,  or  Lee  white  tiles,  seven-eighths  inch,  from  15  to  20  centa  per 
square  foot. 

Tennessee  tiles,  20  cents  per  square  foot. 

All  of  same  are  manufactured  from  salvage  by  domestic  quarry  owners  and  sawmills 
in  the  same  manner  as  by  the  foreign  producers. 

The  total  duty  on  rubbed  and  finished  tiles  to  1  inch  in  thickness  should  not  be 
higher  than  6  cents  per  square  foot,  and  on  tiles  up  to  1$  inches  in  thickness,  8  cents  per 
square  foot. 

The  present  duty  is  so  prohibitive  that  tiles  can  not  be  imported,  being  unable  to 
compete  on  account  of  this  high  duty  with  the  domestic  tile. 

Under  the  present  tariff,  the  Government  assessed  a  duty  without  receiving  any 
revenue  from  an  article  which  could  be  imported  to  this  country  in  large  quantities, 
provided  a  rate  of  duty  consistent  with  the  actual  value  of  the  article  were  assessed. 

Mosaic. — The  present  duty  on  mosaics  is  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  and 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Marble  mosaic,  with  the  exception  of  Tennessee  marble, 
which  is  cut  from  the  smallest  waste  occurring  in  marble  mills  in  Tennessee,  is  not 
produced  in  this  country,  and  the  demand  for  Tennessee  marble  mosaic  is  only  a 
very  limited  one,  hardly  more  than  1  per  cent  of  the  entire  amount  of  mosaic  used 
in  this  country. 

Marble  mosaic  is  cut  from  such  small  debris  in  small  cubes  of  one-half  inch,  five- 
eighths  inch,  and  three-fourths  inch  square.  The  importation  of  marble  mosaics  is 
diminishing  from  year  to  year  on  account  of  the  competition  of  ceramic  tile.  While 
ceramic  floors  are  undoubtedly  very  good  sanitary  floors,  they  lack  many  decorative 
and  other  qualities. 

Good,  sanitary  mosaic  floors,  but  more  practical  and  decorative,  not  alone  in  color 
but  also  in  designs,  etc.,  can  only  be  produced  from  marble  mosaics,  in  which  the 
different  variety  of  shades  and  colors  well  blended  produce  the  artistic  effects. 

While  the  duty  on  mosaic  has  been  reduced  under  the  present  tariff  act  1909  from 
that  assessed  under  act  1897,  viz,  from  1  cent  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 
to  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  we  would  respectfully 
submit  the  abolition  of  the  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty,  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  United  States  custom  authorities  ignore  completely  the  contracts  made  on  the 
other  side  in  accordance  with  which  the  material  is  actually  purchased. 

The  value  of  invoices  to  buyers  of  small  quantities  who  purchase  their  stock  from 
second  and  third  hand,  are  adopted  as  established  market  values,  and  in  order  to  avoid 
annoyances,  importers  have  to  accept  an  arbitrary  valuation  fixed  by  the  United 
States  appraisers,  and  on  this  the  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  is  paid. 

We  offer  the  following  suggestion  as  a  remedy: 

The  specific  duty  on  this  article,  viz,  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  should  remain 
and  the  additional  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  should  be  dropped.  This  would 
give  less  expenses  to  the  Government  for  research  and  other  work  and  render  more 
revenue  to  the  Government  on  account  of  the  increased  importation  which  would 
undoubtedly  follow,  if  importers  and  dealers  are  freed  from  these  petty  and  useless 
annoyances  caused  by  the  ad  valorem  appraisement. 


932 


TARIFF    HEARINGS. 


PABAGBAPHS    111-112— MABBLE. 
For  comparison,  we  wish  to  name  the  following  figures: 


Foreign 

wholesale 

market 

Present 

Per  cent 

value 

duty. 

(about). 

• 

(per  224 

pounds). 

Mosaic  cubes  of— 

Carrara  mosaic  

$2.33 

$1.03 

44 

No>r  V\n  ,,.,,...,,, 

2  82 

.12 

40 

Ste.  Anne  

2  82 

.12 

40 

Rouge  Beige  

2  oo 

12 

40 

Rouge  Chagny  

3.08 

.18 

38 

Rouge  Cuit  

3.64 

.29 

36 

Jaime  de  Lyon.  ...  

3.20 

20 

374 

Blanc  de  Nimes  

3.50 

.26 

36 

The  above  figures  give  the  wholesale  market  value  per  224  pounds,  free  on  board 
Genoa,  Leghorn,  Antwerp,  or  Marseille.  In  this  price  the  packing  and  railroad  freight 
are  included.  The  railroad  freight  is  about  32  cents  per  224  pounds.  It  gives  the 
amount  of  the  United  States  duty  paid  per  224  pounds  and  also  the  percentage  in  pro- 
portion to  the  value  of  the  respective  merchandise. 

Should,  however,  the  specific  duty  of  one-fourth  of  1  cent  not  be  sufficient,  we  rec- 
ommend a  total  specific  duty  of  one-third  of  1  cent  to  overcome  the  difference  of  the 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty. 

The  new  tariff  act  should  therefore  read: 

"Mosaic  cubes  of  marble  or  onyx  not  exceeding  2  cubic  inches  in  size,  if  loose,  one- 
fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  (or  one-third  of  1  cent  per  pound).  If  attached  to  paper  or 
other  material,  5  cents  per  superficial  foot  and  35  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

Terrazzo  and  granito. — The  present  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  the  material.  The  article  in  itself  is  nothing  but  the  waste  d6bris 
of  quarries  and  sawmills,  broken  slabs,  chips,  etc.,  which  can  not  be  used  for  anything 
else,  not  even  for  road  making.  In  order  to  clean  up  the  accumulating  de'bris,  mostly 
in  factories,  they  are  ground  up  into  granular  particles,  and  these  particles  are  packed 
in  bags  and  shipped  to  this  country. 

The  same  customhouse  conditions  and  regulations  exist  with  regard  to  this  article 
as  mentioned  above  on  mosaics.  A  specific  duty  of  60  cents  per  gross  ton  should  be 
assessed,  which  covers  the  present  ad  valorem  duty. 

The  material  in  itself  has  absolutely  no  value;  the  mills  and  quarries  abroad  are  only 
charging  for  the  actual  labor  required  in  grinding  up  this  de'bris. 

The  price  for  this  granito  at  Carrara  is  16  lire  per  gross  ton,  equal  to  about $3. 10 

The  present  freight  rate  from  Carrara  to  New  York  is  about 6.  00 

Duty  on  same 62 

Which  brings  the  net  cost  price  per  ton  (ex  steamship  New  York) 9.  72 

Additional  handling,  lighterage  and  freight  expenses  in  the  port  of  New  York  will 
bring  the  net  cost  to  importers  to  about  $11  per  ton. 

Domestic  quarries  and  marble  manufacturers  are  making  this  terrazzo  or  granito  in 
the  same  manner  also,  to  clear  their  quarries  and  workshops  of  de'bris. 

The  white  granito  or  terrazzo  produced  in  Vermont,  Alabama,  Georgia,  or  Massa- 
chusetts factories  is  sold  at  85.50  per  net  ton  f.  o.  b.  cars  respective  quarries.  The 
high  cost  of  transportation,  freight,  etc.,  on  the  imported  article,  already  forms  an 
ample  protection  to  domestic  producers. 

Carrara  granito  is  an  essential  necessity  for  the  top  layers  of  terrazzo  floors  as  the 
granito  made  of  domestic  marble  is  too  soft,  it  wears  out  quickly  and  discolors  as  soon 
as  cement  is  applied. 

A  very  good  granito  is  produced  in  Tennessee  but  the  price  for  same  is  $8  per  net 
ton  on  cars  Knoxville. 

Tennessee  granito  is  the  only  granito  hard  enough  to  be  applied  for  floors,  but  on 
account  of  its  peculiar  color  from  light  gray  to  dark  brown,  does  not  find  the  demand 
that  the  white  granito  does  but  it  commands  a  higher  price  than  any  white  granito 
or  terrazzo. 

freestone. — The  present  United  States  tariff  act,  1909,  paragraph  114,  reads: 


SCHEDULE  B.  933 

PARAGRAPHS   111-112— MARBLE. 

"Freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  limestone,  and  all  other  monumental  or  building 
stone  except  marble,  breccia,  and  onyx  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
hewn,  dressed,  or  polished  or  otherwise  manufactured,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Unmanufactured  or  not  dressed,  hewn,  or  polished,  10  cents  per  cubic  foot." 

The  importation  of  freestone  or  limestone  of  French,  Italian,  and  other  origin  coming 
under  this  classification,  amounts  to  only  about  30,000  to  40,000  cubic  feet  per  year, 
a  very  small  amount  compared  with  the  millions  of  cubic  feet  produced  in  this  country. 

Freestones  of  light  color  like  the  French  limestones,  chassignelles,  Caen  stone,  lens 
stone,  Italian  limestones,  Travertine,  etc.,  all  of  light  delicate  shade,  are  not  in  ex- 
istence in  this  country  and  consequently  can  not  be  produced  here. 

The  average  cost  of  these  materials  at  the  quarry  abroad,  amounts  to  about  30  cents 
per  cubic  foot,  delivered  on  cars  quarry.  To  this  an  average  railway  and  steamer 
transportation  of  about  90  cents  per  cubic  foot  has  to  be  added. 

The  high  cost  of  transportation  gives  ample  protection  to  domestic  quarry  owners 
if  you  consider  that  the  limestone  quarried  at  Bedford,  Ind.,  is  sold  in  New  York,  one 
of  the  farthest  points  from  their  quarries,  at  75  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

The  duty  of  10  cents  on  imported  limestones  is  unproportionately  high  toward  the 
value  of  the  material  in  itself,  it  amounting  to  about  33J  per  cent. 

If  the  duty  on  this  material  would  be  reduced  to  5  cents  per  cubic  foot,  it  may  lead 
to  larger  adoption  and  consumption  in  the  United  States,  and  this  material  could  then 
be  employed  in  larger  proportions  than  heretofore.  We  propose  that  the  tariff  act 
should  read: 

"Freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  limestone,  and  all  other  monumental  or  building 
stones  except  marble  and  breccia  and  onyx  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
hewn,  dressed,  or  polished,  or  otherwise  manufactured,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem; 
not  manufactured,  dressed,  hewn,  polished,  or  otherwise  manufactured,  5  cents  per 
cubic  foot. " 

All  the  above  data  are  given  after  an  exhaustive  research,  and  we  recommend  to  the 
honorable  Ways  and  Means  Committee  all  the  facts  and  suggestions  for  their  best 
consideration. 

Respectfully  submitted.  C.  D.  JACKSON. 

TABER  &  Co. 
PISANI  BROS. 

HlLGARTNER  MARBLE   Co., 

C.  L.  HILGARTNER,  President. 
EVANS  MARBLE  Co. 
E.  L.  ASHLEY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions? 

Mr.  HILL.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question.  Do  you 
import  Italian  granite  only? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  all  kinds. 

Mr.  HILL.  What  would  be  your  idea  of  the  wisdom  of  striking  out 
these  specific  duties  on  marble  blocks  of  these  various  kinds  and 
making  them  all  ad  valorem  or  just  the  same  as  that  which  is 
partly  manufactured  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  The  ad  valorem  duty— if  you  had  an  ad  valorem,  it 
would  work  great  harm  in  the  importation  of  marble. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  in  regard  to  marble  more  than  anything  else? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Because  there  is  no  expert  here  in  United  States 
employment  who  can  say  what  is  first,  what  is  second,  third,  or 
fourth  quality  marble.  The  unscrupulous  shipper  on  the  other  side 
will  send  first-quality  and  classify  it  as  fourth-quality  marble. 

Mr.  HILL.  There  are  no  such  things  as  unscrupulous  shippers,  are 
there  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  There  are. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  should  there  be  an  a/1  valorem  duty  on  a  piece  of 
marble  or  a  piece  of  granite  that  has  work  on  it,  and  a  specific  duty 
on  a  block  of  the  same  stone,  or  the  same  piece  of  stone,  without  any 
work  done  on  it  ? 


934  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  That  is  very  easy  to  answer.  You  might  employ  on 
a  piece  of  marble,  which  is  only  a  cubic  foot  large,  several  hundred 
dollars'  worth  of  work,  richly  carved,  but  it  measures  only  a  cubic 
foot,  and  the  marble  in  itself  might  be  worth  $2. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then  that  is  the  reason,  is  it,  for  these  specific  duties, 
the  very  high  duties  that  are  shown  here,  not  intrinsically  high,  but 
merely  because  of  the  necessity  of  providing  a  tariff  in  this  way  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  it  is  impossible.  The  only  just  duty  on  marble 
in  the  rough  should  be  a  specific  duty. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  should  we  throw  out  anything  on  which  a  specific 
duty  could  be  applied  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Because  you  sell  marble  by  measure,  cubic  foot 
measure.  It  is  measured  in  the  United  States.  It  eliminates  all 
entanglements.  You  can  not  transport  a  block  of  marble  of  24  or  30 
tons  and  shove  it  into  a  storage  warehouse.  It  is  impossible.  The 
United  States  measurer  comes  and  measures,  and  that  ends  the 
dispute. 

Mr.  HILL.  Why  would  that  not  be  equally  applicable  to  every 
other  item  in  the  tariff  bill ?  Let  me  refer  you  to  this: 

Freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  limestone,  and  all  other  monumental  or  building 
stone,  except  marble,  breccia,  and  onyx,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
hewn,  dressed,  or  polished,  or  otherwise  manufactured,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem;  un- 
manufactured, or  not  dressed,  hewn,  or  polished,  10  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

There  is  no  fair  comparison  between  all  these  different  stones,  that 
they  should  be  classified  at  60  or  80  per  cent  duty. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  is  specified  10  cents  a  cubic  foot.  That  might  mean 
a  hundred  per  cent  on  one  piece  and  only  20  per  cent  on  another  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  You  are  talking  from  the  manufacturer's  point  of 
view. 

Mr.  HELL.  No;  I  am  talking  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  making  of 
the  tariff.  I  am  not  talking  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  manufac- 
turer or  the  importer.  I  am  simply  after  the  best  administration. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I  have  been  in  the  business  28  years.  I  have  fol- 
lowed up  this  question  thoroughly.  I  was  not  present  during  the 
tariff  hearings  of  1893  or  1894,  but  I  consulted  foreign  producers  as 
to  which  would  be  the  safest  and  wisest  way  to  get  the  merchandise 
before  the  public  hi  the  United  States,  and  they  said,  "Do  you  prefer 
ad  valorem  or  do  you  prefer  specific  duties?"  They  all  told  me  the 
ad  valorem  duty  can  not  gauge  the  value  of  a  piece  of  marble.  Now,  if 
this  piece  of  marble  should  represent  a  block  measuring,  for  instance, 
120  cubic  feet,  and  if  it  should  be  absolutely  sound,  the  price  would 
be  $7  on  the  other  side;  but  if  this  piece  of  marble  should  show  a 
crack  up  to  here  [indicating],  it  is  sold  at  once  by  the  producer  as 
defective  and  he  would  reduce  the  price  to  So  per  cubic  foot. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  would  pay  the  same  specific  duty  per  foot  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HELL.  And  the  duty  is  double  in  the  estimates? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  that  is  not  right.  How  can  the  United  States 
appraisers,  after  all  the  annoyance  we  have  in  New  York,  alleviate 
it?  Suppose  the  importer  bought  it  for  $5  on  account  of  that  crack, 
is  he  the  judge  to  decide  about  it  ? 


SCHEDULE  B.  935 

PARAGRAPHS   111-1 12— MARBLE. 

Mr.  HILL.  Is  it  not  as  possible  for  him  to  make  a  correct  ap- 
praisal as  for  the  man  who  sells  it  to  make  a  correct  price  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No,  sir.  If  I  could  find  an  expert  to-day  to  do  this, 
I  would  be  willing  to  pay  him  $25,000  a  year  if  he  could  select  marble 
for  me  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  HILL.  Then,  in  your  judgment  and  from  your  experience  as  an 
importer  of  marble,  would  you  say  that  the  duties  here  should  con- 
tinue to  be  on  the  specific  basis? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  On  the  specific  basis.  The  only  basis  where  the 
United  States  will  receive  honest  duties,  which  they  collect,  is  the 
specific  basis. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  supposed  they  were  all  honest. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No.  Duties  are  unquestionably  honest  on  specific 
values;  otherwise  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Are  you  prepared  to  discuss  the  question  as  to  how 
much  more  revenue  the  Goverment  could  get  out  of  these  various 
articles  that  you  discussed  a  while  ago  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Yes;  I  think  I  am. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  If  the  rates  you  suggest  are  put  into  effect. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I  think  I  am  prepared  to  do  so.  I  have  given  it 
some  considerable  study  for  years. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  How  much  more  would  we  get  out  of  it  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I  do  not  think  the  Government  would  lose  any- 
thing by  it.  I  think  you  would  receive  about  the  same  amount. 
We  are  in  a  peculiar  situation.  We  are  in  the  hands  of  the  steam- 
ship companies,  who  formed  an  ironclad  pool  on  the  other  side,  and 
unless  we  accept  their  rates,  we  can  not  have  any  marble  shipped. 
Now,  the  hoisting  companies  in  New  York  City  have  advanced  their 
hoisting  charges  from  50  to  90  cents  a  ton.  The  lighters  in  the  New 
York  Harbor — everything  has  to  be  lightered  to  the  railroads  or  to  the 
yards  of  manuf acurers  or  dealers — has  been  increased,  and  the  increase 
will  amount  to  about  $30,000  a  year  additional  cost.  They  have 
combined,  and  we  are  at  their  mercy.  We  can  not  do  anything. 
The  question  was  sprung  on  us  on  the  15th  of  December,  and  they 
said  that  that  tariff  would  go  into  effect  on  the  1st  of  January. 
Now,  we  can  not  build  hoisting  gears  or  boats  to  transport  these 
things  over  night.  It  would  take  us  about  from  six  to  ei^ht  or  nine 
months  to  build  such  boats  to  transport  it.  The  importations  would 
remain  the  same.  Domestic  quarry  owners  usually  follow  the  prices 
set  for  the  imported  article. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  you  think  you  could  not  make  it  more  if  the 
tariff  were  lowered  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  it  could  not  be  increased.  It  depends  also  on 
foreign  conditions.  America  is  not  the  only  consuming  country.  I 
have  tabulations  here  showing  the  consumption.  We  are  only  a 
small  consumer  of  foreign  material.  There  is  South  America — 

Mr.  RAINEY.  If  we  should  reduce  these  tariffs,  who  is  going  to  get 
the  benefit  of  the  reductions  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Nobody  would  get  the  benefit  of  it. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Then,  why  are  you  asking  us  to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  To  help  to  maintain  the  importation  of  material. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Who  would  be  benefited  by  it  ? 


936  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE.  , 

Mr.  JACKSON.  The  benefit  would  be  with  the  importations.  The 
importations  would  remain  in  this  country.  Otherwise,  if  the  tariff 
is  not  reduced,  it  will  be  driven  out. 

Mr.  RAINEY.  Do  importations  have  any  effect  upon  prices  made 
in  this  country  by  domestic  producers  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  They  usually  follow.  For  instance,  we  had  to  raise 
these  prices  20  or  25  cents  on  account  of  the  freight  rates  for  trans- 
portation. They  follow.  They  say,  "All  right;  the  importer  has 
got  to  pay  so  much  more,  and  the  article  is  worth  so  much  more,  and 
we  will  raise  it  about  15  or  20  cents."  It  is  quite  a  natural  condi- 
tion. For  instance,  if  the  duty  should  remain  the  same — to-dav  the 
material  is  worth  $3,  and  we  have  to  pay  25  cents  more  now.  We 
can  not  sell  it  for  less  than  S3. 25.  The  domestic  material  is  sold  for 
$1.75.  They  say,  "Now  the  importers  have  to  pay  25  cents  more 
freight  and  duty;  the  material  can  be  bought  cheaper  from  New 
York;  let  us  take  advantage  of  the  situation  and  still  have  $1.95 
or  $1.90." 

Mr.  RAINEY.  All  right;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  HILL.  Was  there  not  a  reduction  in  the  Payne  bill  from  the 
Dingley  bill  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No. 

Mr.  HILL.  As  to  none  of  these  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  A  reduction  was  only  made  on  slabs,  not  on  blocks, 
where  the  slabs  were  reduced  by  2  cents  a  square  foot. 

Mr.  HILL.  Was  there  any  reduction  in  granite  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  That  was  from  12  to  10  cents.  We  import — I  can 
not  say  that  I  am  the  only  importer  of  this  limestone — we  import 
to-day  about  15,000  cubic  feet  more  per  year  on  account  of  the 
reduction  of  2  cents. 

Mr.  HILL.  But  you  get  no  more  profit  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  we  gave  them  the  benefit  of  it.  If  any  tariff 
is  reduced  by  certain  proportions,  the  manufacturer  will  get  the 
benefit  of  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  I  supposed  it  would  go  to  the  other  side. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  No;  here. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  man  who  buys  and  manufactures  it  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HILL.  He  passes  it  on  down  to  the  consumer,  just  as  you  pass 
it  down  to  him,  does  he  not  ? 

Mr.  JACKSON.  That  is  a  question. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEORGE  W.  ASHLEY,  ESQ.,  REPRESENTING  THE 

SISSON  MARBLE  CO. 

Mr.  ASHLEY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  the  Sisson 
Marble  Co.  and  the  sentiment  of  10  others  from  whom  we  have 
heard,  in  a  quick  correspondence  on  the  subject,  in  regard  to  the 
tariff  on  marble,  which  is  covered  in  paragraphs  111,  112,  and  114. 

The  present  assessment  of  block  marble,  taking  that  as  a  basis, 
is  65  cents  a  cubic  foot.  The  average  cost  of  quarrying  marble  in 
this  country  ranges  from  40  to  60  cents  a  cubic  foot.  The  average 
cost,  using  as  a  basis  the  white  marble,  the  Carrara  marble,  on 
board  ship,  is  83.10  per  cubic  foot. 


SCHEDULE  B.  937 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

It  is  not  only  that  it  is  excessive  when  compared  to  the  cost  of 
marble  in  this  country,  but  the  range  of  the  duties  on  sawed  mate- 
rial is  inequitable.  For  instance,  if  you  take  a  block  of  marble 
and  saw  it  into  slabs,  say  three-quarters  to  an  inch  thick,  it  costs 
you  60  cents  a  cubic  foot  for  the  service.  You  can  obtain  from  10 
to  11  slabs.  It  makes  the  cost  in  this  country  for  slabs  1  inch  thick 
37  cents  per  superficial  foot.  You  can  buy  those  same  slabs  in 
Italy  and  the  exporter  will  be  paid  at  \1\  or  18  cents  on  board  ship. 
I  put  it  in  my  statement  here  10  pence,  which  is  20  cents,  and  with 
the  prevailing  duties  at  8  cents  and  the  ocean  freight  at  3  cents,  it 
amounts  to  31  cents,  against  the  cost  in  this  country  of  37  cents. 

I  want  to  say,  simply  as  a  matter  of  revenue,  if  the  duties  are  kept 
on  block  marble  the  duties  on  the  sawed  material  should  be  rearranged 
at  least  to  make  it  possible  that  a  manufactory  or  mill  in  this  country 
can  produce  from  a  block  of  marble,  which  is  the  raw  material,  at  a 
cost  not  exceeding  that  at  which  it  can  be  imported. 

Under  one  of  these  schedules,  there  is  no  provision  made  for  an 
article  that  is  largely  imported.  Wecallitgranito.  It  is  being  assessed 
at  present  under  paragraph  480.  They  have  tried  numerous  ways  of 
having  it  admitted  under  the  classification  of  waste  at  10  per  cent, 
but  under  paragraph  480  it  has  a  duty  of  20  per  cent.  This  granito 
costs  on  board  steamer  on  the  other  side  one-filth  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
or  $4  a  ton  of  2,000  pounds.  The  freight  on  that  is  $4.  That  is  $8, 
which  is  the  cost  to  land  it  exclusive  of  duties.  It  is  sold  in  this 
country  from  $9.50  to  $10,  the  cost  not  exceeding  $5,  manufactured 
on  this  side. 

Under  the  same  classifications  you  are  admitting  granite,  sandstone, 
limestone,  and  other  material  of  that  character  on  a  basis  of  10  cents 
a  cubic  foot.  Why  should  this  discrimination  be  made  against  mar- 
ble? There  is  a  large  percentage  of  limestone,  Italian  and  French, 
that  is  now  known  to  the  architectural  trade  and  to  the  trade  gen- 
erally as  monotone  marbles,  which  is  being  used  for  decorative  pur- 
poses— limestone  10  cents,  granite  10  cents,  sandstone  10  cents,  mar- 
ble 65  cents. 

It  is  easily  explainable  how  duties  on  marble  was  arrived  at  65 
cents. 

Speaking  for  the  manufacturers,  and  I  have  known  them  for  the 
last  30  years,  who  have  been  accustomed  to  bear  this  burden,  if  this 
duty  is  retained  at  65  cents  we  desire  to  ask  your  committee  to  at 
least  readjust  the  duties  on  the  sawed  material  so  that  we  can  produce 
them  in  this  country  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  that  at  which  it  can  be 
imported. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions  ?     That  is  all. 

BALTIMORE,  MD.,  January  4,  191i. 

To  the  honorable  COMMITTEE  ON  WATS  AND  MEANS, 

Washing Ion,  D.  C. 
GENTLEMEN: 
Present  tariff  on  marble  and  onyx: 

On  block per  cubic  foot. 

Sawed  over  2  inches  thick per  cubic  foot. 

Slabs  1  inch  and  under per  superficial  foot. 

Slabs  over  1  inch  and  not  exceeding  H  inches per  superficial  foot. 


Slabs  over  1£  inches  and  not  more  than  2  inches  thick... per  superficial  foot. 


$0.65 
1.00 
.08 
.10 
.12* 


938  TABIPF  HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS   111-112— MARBLE. 

This  classification  of  rates  discriminates  in  favor  of  slabs  sawed  abroad,  thus: 

Average  cost  of  Italian  white  ordinary,  marble  in  this  country,  duties  and  freight 
paid,  is  $3.10  per  cubic  foot. 

Cost  of  sawing  in  this  country,  60  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

Ten  slabs  of  1  inch  thickness  can  be  produced  to  the  cubic  foot,  making  the  cost 
of  1-inch  slabs  produced  in  this  country  37  cents  per  superficial  foot. 

Slabs  not  exceeding  1  inch  thick  can  be  purchased  abroad  f .  o.  b.  steamer  at 

cost  of  10d.,  say per  superficial  foot. .  $0.  20 

Prevailing  duties per  superficial  foot..      .08 

Ocean  freight per  superficial  foot..      .03 

.31 

A  differential  of  approximately  20  per  cent  in  favor  of  imported  slabs  not  exceed- 
ing 1  inch  thick. 

The  differential  in  favor  of  imported  slabs  over  1-inch  and  not  exceeding  1$  inches 
is  approximately  15  per  cent. 

We  claim  that  if  the  present  rate  is  continued  on  blocks,  the  schedule  on  slabs 
should  be  increased  to  equalize  costs. 

Other  than  a  source  of  revenue  there  is  no  logical  reason  for  duty  on  marble  in 
block  form  (which  is  raw  material),  for  the  reason  that  the  average  cost  of  quarrying 
marble  in  this  country  is  approximately  50  cents  to  60  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

The  average  cost  of  Italian  ordinary  white  blocks,  f.  o.  b.  steamer  abroad,  is  $2 
per  cubic  foot;  ocean  freight,  45  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

Paragraph  111  should  be  amended  to  include  breccia,  which  is  not  provided  for  in 
existing  classification,  excepting  wholly  or  partly  manufactured. 

The  existing  schedules  admit  freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  and  limestone,  unmanu- 
factured or  not  dressed,  hewn,  or  polished,  at  10  cente  per  cubic  foot. 

Does  any  reason  exist  why  marble  blocks  should  be  made  to  pay  a  duty  six  and  one- 
half  times  as  high  as  that  assessed  against  limestone,  granite,  etc.?  It  is,  however, 
easily  explainable  in  that  limestone,  granite,  sandstone,  and  freestone  are  not  quarried 
in  Vermont,  from  which  influence  the  present  rate  on  block  marble  was  assessed  to 
provide  a  needless  protection  for  a  material  that  cost  less  to  quarry  than  the  duty 
assessed.  If  block  marble  abroad  were  given  away  and  ocean  freight  free,  then  the 
prevailing  duties  still  represent  an  excess  of  the  cost  of  quarrying  in  this  country. 

Granito,  which  is  imported  largely,  is  not  provided  for  under  the  existing  tariff  law, 
but  is  assessed  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  paragraph  480.  This  material,  made 
from  spalls  of  white  ordinary  Italian  marble,  can  be  purchased  abroad  at  lit.  2.40  per 
100  kilos  f.  o.  b.  steamer,  Bay  one-fifth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  or  say  $4  per  ton  of  2,000 
pounds.  Freight  on  same,  say  $4  per  ton,  as  against  a  net  cost  of  $5  per  ton  when 
produced  in  this  country. 

We  suggest  this  article  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 

Placquettes  or  mosaic  cubes  of  white  ordinary  Italian  can  be  purchased  abroad  for 
lit.  12  per  100  kilos,  say  1  cent  per  pound,  or  $20  per  ton  of  2,000  pounds  f.  o.  b.  steamer. 
The  demand  for  it  has  decreased  gradually  for  past  decade,  largely  because  of  excessive 
duties,  which  are  substantially  45  per  cent,  and  should  be  reasonably  reduced. 

We  suggest  that  paragraphs  111,  112,  114  be  revised  to  read: 

"Marble,  breccia,  onyx,  freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  limestone,  and  all  other  monu- 
mental or  building  marble  and  stone,  in  block,  rough  or  squared  only,  unman  ufac- 
tured,  or  not  dressed,  hewn,  sawed,  or  polished,  ten  cents  per  cubic  foot;  marble, 
breccia,  and  onyx  sawed  over  two  inches  in  thickness  seventy-five  cents  per  cubic 
foot;  slabs  or  paving  tile  of  marble,  containing  not  less  than  four  superficial  inches, 
if  not  more  than  one  inch  in  thickness,  eight  cents  per  superficial  foot;  if  more  than 
one  inch  and  not  more  than  one  and  one-half  inches  in  thickness,  ten  cents  per  super- 
ficial foot;  if  more  than  one  and  one-half  inches  and  not  more  than  two  inches  in 
thickness,  fifteen  cents  per  superficial  foot;  if  rubbed  in  whole  or  in  part,  three  cents 
per  superficial  foot  in  addition;  mosaic  cubes  of  marble  not  exceeding  two  inches  iu 
size,  if  loose,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem;  if  attached  to  paper  or  other  material, 
thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

"Marble,  breccia,  onyx,  alabaster,  limestone,  and  jet  wholly  or  partly  manufactured 
into  monuments,  benches,  vases,  architectural  designs,  and  other  articles  or  of  which 
these  substances  or  either  of  them  is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  and  all 
articles  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of  agate,  rock  crystal,  or  other  semiprecious 
stones,  except  such  as  are  cut  into  shapes  and  forms  fitting  them  expressly  for  use  in 


SCHEDULE   B.  939 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

the  construction  of  jewelry,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section,  fifty  per  centum 
ad  valorem." 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Yours,  truly,  SISSON  MARBLE  Co., 

Per  GEO.  W.  ASHLEY,  President. 

PEORIA  STONE  &  MARBLE  WORKS, 

Peoria,  III.,  January  2,  191S. 
Mr.  GEO.  W.  ASHLEY, 

Care  of  Sisson  Marble  Co.,  Baltimore. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  beg  to  advise  you  that  we  certainly  favor  a  reduction  in  the  tariff  on 
imported  marble  and  feel  that  block  marble  should  come  in  free  of  duty  as  the  cost  of 
producing  domestic  material  does  not  amount  to  as  much  as  the  duty  per  cubic  foot. 
There  is  several  million  dollars  invested  in  manufacturing  plants  that  their  existence 
depends  on  the  use  of  imported  marble  as  the  producers  of  domestic  material  make  the 
price  so  that  we  can  not  buy  their  stock  and  compete  against  them,  which  we  are  com- 
pelled to  do. 

The  duty  imposed  places  the  foreign  product  in  the  hands  of  a  few  wealthy  importers 
and  bars  the  smaller  manufacturer  in  this  country  from  purchasing  his  material  direct 
from  the  producer  on  the  other  side,  and  we  have  always  noticed  the  large  importers 
who  have  representatives  in  this  country  oppose  the  reduction  in  duty,  as  the  imposing 
of  a  duty  enabled  them  to  control  the  situation  here  and  charge  us  such  profit  as  they 
see  fit. 

We  certainly  hope  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  will  assist  the  manufacturers  of 
this  country  to  break  up  any  combination  that  may  exist  by  taking  off  all  duty  and 
let  us  have  free  raw  material. 

Yours,  truly,  PEORIA  STONE  &  MARBLE  WORKS, 

Per  H.  A.  FARLEY. 

STANDARD  MARBLE  WORKS, 

Cincinnati,  December  16, 191g. 
Mr.  GEO.  W.  ASHLEY, 

Care  of  Sisson  Marble  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant  and  note  the  contents.  I  cer- 
tainly think  that  some  concerted  action  should  be  taken  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  the  schedule  of  tariff  now  levied  on  marble,  as 
being  excessive  and  inconsistent.  They  should  be  told  emphatically  that  the  present 
duty  is  excessive  and  inconsistent.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  having  the  duty  on 
block  marble  taken  off  entirely.  If  any  duty  is  placed  on  marble,  let  it  be  on  slabs 
and  finished  stock  and  on  finished  stock  in  particular. 

I  understand  that  finished  marble  when  intended  for  church  purposes  is  brought  in 
free,  and  this  should  be  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  and 
a  heavy  duty  placed  on  marble  of  this  character. 

I  am  ready  to  act  with  you,  and  if  you  will  advise  me  what  I  can  do  to  bring  the 
matter  in  a  proper  way  to  the  attention  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  I  will  be 
glad  to  act  promptly. 

Yours,  very  truly,  JOHN  M.  MUELLER,  Jr. 


HENRY  MARBLE  Co., 

Chicago,  January  2,  1913 
SISSON  MARBLE  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

GENTLEMEN:  Replying  to  your  inquiry  regarding  our  views  on  the  subject  of  tariff 
on  marble  would  state  that  we  are  strongly  in  favor  of  a  reduction  in  the  tariff,  and 
can  not  see  how  we  can  successfully  compete  with  some  other  materials  that  are 
thrown  on  the  market  at  the  present  time,  unless  tariff  is  reduced  considerably  on 
imported  marbles.  Hope  your  committee  will  be  successful  in  influencing  this  re- 
duction at  an  early  date. 

Yours,  very  truly,  HENRY  MARBLE  Co., 

Per  H.  K.  TOWNSEND. 


940  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPHS    111-112— MARBLE. 

FEENEY  &  DEVANNY  Co., 
New  York  City,  N.  Y.,  December  16,  1912. 
Mr.  G.  W.  ASHLEY, 

Care  of  the  Sisson  Marble  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  acknowledge'  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant  regarding 
the  tariff  on  marble.  -We  heartily  agree  with  your  views  and  presume  that  you  have 
some  plan  in  mind  and  in  going  over  the  matter  we  take  this  occasion  of  a  hearty  co- 
operation and  when  your  plans  are  formulated  we  would  appreciate  the  opportunity 
to  participate  in  them. 

Very  truly,  yours,  FEENEY  &  DEVANNY  Co. 

GORDON  STEWART. 


N.  O.  NELSON  MARBLE  Co., 
Edwardsville,  III.,  December  16,  1912. 
SISSON  MARBLE  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  have  your  favor  of  the  14th,  addressed  to  the  Illinois  Marble  Co., 
whose  successors  we  are.  We  agree  with  you  that  the  present  tariff  on  imported 
marble  is  excessive,  and  we  would  have  no  objection  to  joining  in  with  other  marble 
dealers  in  getting  the  tariff  reduced.  In  fact,  it  seems  to  us  that  when  the  Democrats 
get  to  work  on  the  tariff  there  will  not  be  much  trouble  in  getting  them  to  cut  this 
item,  as  well  as  many  others. 

We  are  with  you  in  this  movement  and  will  be  glad  to  join  forces  with  you  and 
others  when  the  proper  time  comes. 

Yours,  truly,  N.  O.  NELSON  MARBLE  Co., 

L.  D.  LAWINN,  Treasurer. 

THE  CHAS.  MCDONALD  MARBLE  Co.  (!NC.), 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  21,  1912. 
GEO.  W.  ASHLEY, 

Care  of  Sisson  Marble  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  are  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  14th  and  think  some  concerted  action 
should  be  taken  regarding  the  marble  tariff. 

The  board  of  directors  of  the  National  Association  of  Marble  Dealers  had  a  meeting 
here  Thursday  and  those  not  interested  in  native  quarries  thought  it  was  all  right. 
Mr.  Farley  said  that  he  was  going  on  to  Washington,  and  that  he  had  had  several  talks 
with  Mr.  Champ  Clark  regarding  the  matter. 

Kindly  keep  the  writer  advised  regarding  the  situation. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

THE  CHAS.  MCDONALD  MARBLE  Co., 
Per  WINSLOW. 


JACOBY  &  SON  Co.,  KEYSTONE  MARBLE  WORKS, 

Philadelphia,  December  14,  1912. 
SISSON  MARBLE  Co., 

West,  Twenty-third  Street  and  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad,  Baltimore,  Md. 
GENTLEMEN:  Replying  to  yours  of  13th,  would  say  that  we  agree  with  you  that 
something  should  be  done  to  reduce  tariff  on  marble  and  will  be  glad  to  do  our  share 
in  the  matter. 

Yours,  truly,  JACOBY  &  SON  Co. 

II.  MARQUARDT  MARBLE  AND  GRANITE  Co., 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  December  16,  1912. 

Messrs.  SISSON  MARBLE  Co.,  . 

West  T verity-third  Street  and  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad, 

Baltimore,  Md. 

GENTLEMEN:  Wo  have  received  your  favor  regarding  the  new  schedule  of  ocean 
freight  rate?  and  tariff,  etc.,  which  may  come  up  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  said  rates  and  tariff  discriminating  apparently  in  favor  of  the  domestic  marble 
combinations. 

We  certainly  are  willing  to  aid  in  the  revision  of  said  tariff,  if  advised. 
Hoping  it  will  be  successfully  carried  out,  we  remain, 
Respectfully,  yours, 

II.  MARQUARDT  MARBLE  &  GRANITE  Co., 
Per  H.  M. 


SCHEDULE   B.  941 

PARAGRAPHS   111-112  -ONYX. 

JAMES  B.  CLOW  &  SONS, 

Chicago,  December  16,  1919. 
SISSON  MARBLE  Co., 

West  Twenty-third  Street  and  Baltimore  <fc  Ohio  Railroad, 

Baltimore,  Md. 

GENTLEMEN:  I  think  if  we  let  the  Democrats  alone  they  will  put  the  tariff  down 
low  enough.     I  never  did  see  any  reason  except  from  the  standpoint  of  revenue,  why 
there  should  be  a  duty  on  a  noncompetitive  product  like  Italian  marble  that  is  used 
for  different  purposes  than  our  regular  run  of  white  American  marble. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

W.  E.  CLOW,  President. 

JOHN  H.  SHIPWAY  &  BRO., 

New    York,  December  17,  1919. 
The  SISSON  MARBLE  Co., 

Baltimore,  Md. 

GENTLEMEN:  Replying  to  your  favor  of  December  14,  which  has  just  come  to  hand, 
the  writer  has  taken  the  matter  up  with  two  or  three  different  manufacturers  in  New 
York,  and  we  are  going  to  bring  it  before  our  executive  committee  of  the  Marble 
Industry  Employers'  Association.  As  soon  as  something  definite  has  been  decided 
upon  we  shall  be  very  pleased  to  immediately  communicate  with  you. 

We  believe  that  the  duty  on  block  marble  should  be  abolished,  and  we  shall  work 
toward  that  end,  keeping  you  informed  of  everything  that  happens  before  the  time 
when  the  matter  is  to  be  heard. 

We  wish  to  thank  you  for  your  kindness  in  bringing  this  matter  to  our  attention, 
and  beg  to  remain, 

Yours,  very  truly,  JOHN  H.  SHIPWAY  &  BRO., 

Per  J.  H.  SHIPWAY. 


ONYX. 

PROTEST  AGAINST  REMOVAL  OF  DUTY. 

PEDRARA  ONYX  Co., 
San  Diego,  Col.,  January  18,  191S. 
Hon.  WILLIAM  KETTNER, 

United  States  Representative,  Eleventh  District  of  California, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  would  appreciate  your  cooperation  in  the  following  matter  pertaining 
to  the  removal  of  the  import  duty  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  imposed  upon  our  product 
at  the  present  time,  and  concerning  same  I  wish  to  present  the  following  facts,  which 
I  believe  justify  the  attitude  of  myself  and  associates  in  this  company  in  this  matter. 

First.  Should  this  duty  of  65  cents  per  cubic  foot  be  removed  from  our  product,  it 
would  still  be  absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  produce  and  land  our  product  in  the 
United  States  for  the  price  at  which  domestic  marbles  are  sold  to  the  retail  trade.  The 
majority  of  the  domestic  marbles  commands  a  price  of  from  $1  to  $1.25  per  cubic  foot 
less  at  retail  than  that  at  which  we  can  produce  and  land  onyx  in  the  United  States. 

Second.  There  is  absolutely  no  onyx  in  the  United  States  of  marketable  quality  in 
sufficient  quantity  to  warrant  placing  it  upon  the  market.  Consequently  we  would 
not  be  competing  with  home  products  in  any  way. 

Third.  We  are  at  this  time  at  a  great  disadvantage  with  our  competitors  in  the  im- 
portation of  foreign  colored  marbles  into  the  United  States,  because  of  the  inaccessible 
location  of  our  quarries  and  the  peculiar  conditions  surrounding  them  necessary  to 
the  production  of  our  onyx,  which  preclude  even  a  legitimate  competition  on  our  part 
with  any  pf  the  imported  colored  foreign  marbles. 

Fourth.  We  also  wish  to  call  to  your  attention  at  this  time  that  our  company  is 
strictly  an  American  company,  organized  in  the  United  States  and  operating  in 
Mexico,  whereas  in  99  per  cent  of  the  cases  pur  competitors  in  the  importation  of  for- 
eign colored  marbles  are  controlled  by  foreign  capital,  and  the  United  States  there- 
lore  derives  no  benefit  whatever  from  them.  But,  on  account  of  our  financial  back- 


942  TAEIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  114— GRANITE. 

ing,  as  above  stated,  being  in  the  United  StateSj  the  sale  of  our  product  is  not  a  drain 
upon  the  financial  resources  of  the  country,  as  is  naturally  the  case  with  foreign  cor- 
porations operating  in  the  United  States.    On  the  contrary,  the  proceeds  of  this  com- 
pany are  a  direct  asset  to  the  general  financial  condition  in  this  country. 
Your  requests  for  any  further  information  or  data  will  receive  my  prompt  attention. 
Your  cooperation  in  this  matter,  as  previously  stated',  will  be  personally  appreciated. 
Thanking  you  in  advance  for  an  early  reply,  I  beg  to  remain, 
Yours,  very  truly, 

PEDRARA  ONYX  Co., 
F.  J.  LEA, 
Vice  President  and  General  Manager. 

PARAGRAPH  113. 

Burrstones,  manufactured  or  bound  up  into  millstones,  fifteen  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

PARAGRAPH  114. 

Freestone,  granite,  sandstone,  limestone,  and  all  other  monumental  or 
building  stone,  except  marble,  breccia,  and  onyx,  not  specially  provided  for 
in  this  section,  hewn,  dressed,  or  polished,  or  otherwise  manufactured,  fifty 
per  centum  ad  valorem ;  unmanufactured,  or  not  dressed,  hewn,  or  polished, 
ten  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

GRANITE. 

STATEMENT  OF  FRANK  J.   HANOLD,    REPRESENTING   THE 
NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  GRANITE  DEALERS. 

Mr.  HANOLD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  not  Mr.  William 
M.  Dodd.  Mr.  Dodd  telegraphed  me  to  represent  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Give  your  name  and  address  to  the  stenographer. 

Mr.  HANOLD.  My  name  is  Frank  J.  Hanold,  of  Townsend,  Townsend 
&  Co.,  453  West  Twenty-first  Street,  New  York  City.  I  might  also 
say  that  you  have  allotted  me  from  3.40  to  3.50  p.  m.  on  behalf  of  my 
own  firm.  In  what  I  have  to  say  as  representing  the  wholesale 
granite  dealers,  I  will  cover  ground  on  behalf  of  my. own  firm  at  the 
same  time,  and  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  give  me  that  tune  this 
afternoon. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  paragraph  are  you  interested  in? 

Mr.  HANOLD.  Paragraph  114. 

On  behalf  of  the  National  Wholesale  Granite  Dealers  Association, 
comprising  18  firms  engaged  in  the  business  of  selling  domestic  and 
imported  granite  monuments  at  wholesale,  respectfully  recommend 
that  section  B,  paragraph  114,  of  tariff  act  of  August  5,  1909,  be 
amended  by  reducing  the  tariff  on  manufactured  granite  mentioned 
in  said  paragraph  from  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

The  present  rate  of  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  prohibitive  to  that 
extent,  that  the  cost  of  imported  granite  monuments  is  far  in  excess 
of  the  cost  of  the  same  article  of  domestic  manufacture,  so  that  the 
importation  of  granite  monuments  has  diminished,  resulting  not  only 
in  preventing  the  imported  article  reaching  the  consumer  of  moderate 
means,  but  must  have  resulted  in  decreased  revenue  to  the  Govern- 
ment. 


SCHEDULE  B.  943 

PARAGRAPH  11-t-GRANTTE. 

I  have  prepared  a  brief  in  which  are  submitted  plans  of  certain 
classes  of  monuments  that  we  deal  in,  the  class  of  goods  that  we 
import.  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  your  time  to  read  this  brief,  but  I 
wish  to  state  that  in  computing  the  cost  of  these  monuments  we  first 
show  the  cost  of  imported  granite  monuments,  delivered  f.  o.  b.  cars 
at  New  York,  at  the  present  tariff  rate  of  50  per  cent  ad  valorem ;  then 
we  show  the  relative  cost  of  imported  granite  monuments,  delivered 
f.  o.  b.  cars  at  New  York,  based  on  a  tariff  rate  of  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem;  and  then  we  show  the  present  cost  of  the  same  article  of 
domestic  granite  manufacture,  delivered  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  the  quarries. 

Your  attention  is  specially  directed  to  the  fact  that  under  a  tariff 
of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  the  cost  of  the  imported  article  will  still 
be  in  excess  of  the  cost  of  the  domestic  article,  thereby  furnishing 
protection  to  the  American  industry  and  at  the  same  tune  will  afford 
the  consumer  the  opportunity  to  purchase  imported  goods  at  reason- 
able prices,  which  must  result  in  increased  imports  and  consequently 
greater  revenue  to  the  Government. 

I  am  prepared  now  to  answer  any  questions  on  the  subject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions,  gentlemen  ?  [After  a 
pause.]  That  is  all. 

Mr.  HANOLD.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Hanold's  brief  is  as  follows: 

The  cost  of  monuments,  as  per  plans  attached,  are  computed  as  follows: 

First.  Cost  of  imported  granite  f .  o.  b.  Aberdeen,  Scotland,  the  place  of  manufacture, 
in  pounds,  at  $4.8665.  Duty  at  50  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Freight  from  Aberdeen  and 
delivery  charges  to  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  New  York,  based  on  actual  experience  on  goods  that 
have  been  imported. 

Second.  Cost  of  goods,  same  as  above,  but  based  on  a  tariff  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Third.  Cost  price  of  same  article  in  domestic  granite,  including  delivery  f.  o.  b. 
cars  at  quarry. 

PLAN  7744. 

At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £2.14 $13.34 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 6.  67 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars,  New  York 4.  57 

24.58 
At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £2.14 13.34 

Duty  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 2.  67 

Freight  and  delivery  f.  o.  b.  cars,  New  York 4.  57 

20.58 
Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 13.  00 

PLAN  8185. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £4.14 $22.87 

Duty,  at  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 11. 44 

Freight  and  delivery  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  New  York 7. 11 

41.42 


944  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  114— GRANITE. 

At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £4.14 $22.87 

Duty,  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 4.  58 

Freight  and  delivery  f.  o.  b.  cars,  New  York 7. 11 

34.56 
Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  L  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 30. 00 

PLAN  8212. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £4.15 $23.11 

Duty,  at  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 11. 55 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b  cars,  New  York 7. 11 

41.77 
At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £4.15 23. 11 

Duty,  at  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 4.  62 

Freignt  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars,  New  York '. 7. 11 

34.84 
Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 30.  00 

PLAN  8093. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £6 $29. 19 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 14.  59 

Freight  and  delivery,  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 9.  50 

53.28 

At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £6 29. 19 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 5.  82 

Freight  and  delivery,  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York -. 9.  50 

44.51 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o .  b .  cars  at  quarry 36.  00 

PLAN  8090. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £6.17.6 $33.  45 

Duty,  50  per  cent:  ad  valorem 16.  73 

Freignt  and  delivery,  f.  o.  1).  curs  New  York 10.  63 


60.81 

At  20  per  cent  ad  -valorem. 

Cost,  £0.17.6 33.45 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 6.  69 

Freight  and  delivery,  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York 10.  63 

50.77 

Cost  in  dojnestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 40. 00 


SCHEDULE   B.  945 

PARAGRAPH  114— GRANITE. 

PLAN  8120. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £8 . 15 $42.  58 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 21.  29 

Freight  and  delivery,  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 12. 49 


76.36 
At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £8.15 42.58 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 8.  52 

Freight  and  delivery,  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York 12.  49 

63.59 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 53.  00 

PLAN  8123. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £11.10 $55.96 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 27.  98 

Freight  and  delivery,  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York 16.  38 

100. 32 

At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £11 .10 55.  96 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 11.  20 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 16.  38 

83.54 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 68. 00 

PLAN  7943. 

At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £12.5 $59.  61 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 29.  80 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 18.  72 

108. 13 

At  SO  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £12.5 59.  61 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 11.  92 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 18.  72 

90.25 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 87.  00 

PLAN  8015. 

At  -50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £12 $60.  82 

Duty,  at  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 30.  41 

Freight  and  delivery  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York 19. 13 

110.  36 
78959s— YOL  1—13 60 


946  TARIFF   HEARINGS. 

PARAGRAPH  114— GRANITE. 

At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £  12 $60.  82 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 12.17 

Freight  and  delivery  f.  o.  b.  cars  New  York 19. 13 

92.12 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 
Delivered  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 88. 00 

PLAN  7967. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £15 $72.  99 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem .  * 36:50 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 22.  67 

132. 16 
At  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £15 72.  99 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 14.  60 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 22.  67 


110.  26 

Cost  in  domestic  granite. 

Delivered  f .  o.  b.  cars  at  quarry 95.  00 

PLAN  8044. 
At  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Cost,  £16.5 $79.  08 

Duty,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 39.  54 

Freight  and  delivery  f .  o.  b.  cars  New  York 24. 10 

142. 72 
At  20  per  cent  ad  valortr:. 

Cost,  £16.5 79.  08 

Duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 15.  82 

Freight  and  deliverv  f .  o.  b .  cars  New  York. .                  24. 10 


119.  00 


PARAGRAPH  115. 

Grindstones,  finished  or  unfinished,  one  dollar  and  seventy-five  cents 
per  ton. 

PARAGRAPH  116. 

Slates,  slate  chimney  pieces,  mantels,  slabs  for  tables,  roofing  slates,  and 
all  other  manufactures  of  slate,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  section, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

SWEARING  OF  WITNESSES. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Genrlemen.  I  believe. Mr.  James  has  a  motion  to 
make. 

Mr.  JAMES.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  move  that  after  to-day's  hearing,  all 
witnesses  that  appear  before  the  committee  be  first  sworn. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  1  have  no  objection  if  we  have  authority;  I  do  not 
know  as  we  have  authoritv. 


SCHEDULE   B.  947 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  there  is  authority  under  the  general  stat- 
ute 

Mr.  DALZELL.  Did  we  not  have  to  pass  a  resolution  at  the  time  of 
the  hearings  on  the  Payne  bill  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  did,  but  it  was  not  necessary. 

Mr.  JAMES.  The  general  statute  authorizes  the  chairman  to  swear 
witnesses. 

Mr.  HULL.  Is  the  statute  broad  enough  so  that  one  sitting  for  the 
chairman  may  administer  the  oath  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  Do  you  wish  to  discuss  this  motion,  gentle- 
men ?  If  not,  I  will  put  the  question. 

The  motion  was  adopted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  10 
o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Whereupon,  at  7.20  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  January  10,  1913,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

[E— VOL.  1) 


DATE  DUE 


PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  569  248     8 


